Talk:Marshall Strabala/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old comments

why do edits on this page keep getting deleted? something very odd going on, (unsupported personal atatck removed by another editor).

(unsupported BLP material and personal attack material removed by another editor)

Why can these pieces of factual information keep getting deleted from the page? VERY ODD... bet these comments get deleted pretty soon too... since "someone" seems very keen to keep their version of the truth as the "real" one...

193.104.113.31 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

LEED Certified

Glad that Marshall is certified, but LEED AP's are accredited, buildings are certified. Basic LEED 101... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Please note: Marshall Strabala, who I personally represent, has provided me his express permission for use of his color portrait photo, which he owns all rights to. You also can see this photo posted at http://www.flickr.com/photos/architectural-design/ where it is marked Public Domain. Flickr does not offer a Public Domain category so this has been typed in under the photo caption. The photo has also been provided free of any rights to dozens of media outlets worldwide. Any questions on this permission, please email me at mpirages@piragescom.com or contact Marshall Strabala at marshall_strabala@gensler.com Thank you. (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

Images Placed on Marshall Strabala page

Comment moved from User talk:Mykjoseph#Images Placed on Marshall Strabala page

Timsdad and other Wikipedia Editors,

I hope that sufficient proof and background information has been placed to show that the Sangnam Art Hall and Marshall Strabala portrait photos are Public Domain. (See licenses and information on those image pages.) If you need anything further, please inform me.

Also, Timsdad, can you tell me why were the building photos that I posted on Marshall Strabala's page moved and considerably reduced in size to very tiny shots within a Gallery? If you visit most architects' Wikipedia pages (i.e., architects Adrian Smith, Santiago Calatrava, Frank Meier) they all are permitted larger shots (some huge shots) of their buildings on their page. Are more popular architects allowed large photos, and lesser known architects required to have tiny shots? Just asking. I would appreciate learning Wikipedia's rule on this, and sincerely hope that if there is a rule covering this, it is implemented consistently and sitewide. The minuscule shots hardly give Wikipedia visitors and especially, visually impaired people, any idea of what his buildings look like. All of my family members did not realize Wiki photos can be clicked on to see larger images, so many Wiki visitors could be missing out to be fully informed. That would be most unfortunate. Thank you for all of the great work you do.

Mykjoseph (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

Well, for starters, articles that are generally too small to have a number of large pictures on them, but require images to show the subjects (this being the perfect example) have galleries. By aligning some images left and some right, the formatting is messed up, overall decreasing the aesthetic quality of the article. Take a look at any of Wikipedia's featured articles and you'll see the most visually pleasing ways to set out text and images. As I was getting to before, because Strabala has less works than, for example, Adrian Smith, the text is not long enough to support large images.

As for all of the images with possible copyright problems, I'm still not sure how to approach it. I'm not questioning the fact that Strabala has given consent and they may be public domain, there are just so many other factors that I have very little expertise in handling, and I'm trying to make them visible in the community to get some more experienced editors that know about copyrighting to help out. This particular image; I am worried about, as you have (in a way) described that the image is from flickr. But there are also many problems with copyrighted images on flickr being uploaded by people and then people uploading them on Wikipedia, see here.

In future, I recommend that your upload your images on the Wikimedia Commons, or they will get deleted if not used in articles and may have copyright problems. Also, when uploading an image from flickr, it would make everyone's lives easier if you chose the "A work from Flickr" (Wikipedia) or "It is someone else's work from Flickr" (Commons). This way we can verify if the licensing and copyrights are okay for use on Wikimedia projects.

It's all a bit confusing, but the one important thing is that Wikipedia is very sensitive about files and copyrights. If you don't upload something correctly or specify the correct licensing, it will get deleted. Oh, and in future, try to use the 'Preview' button to preview your edits to see if they work instead of 'Save page', this way it's much easier for other users to see what edits you've made, and explain your edits in the edit summary box. --timsdad ^(talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Timsdad,

Thank you for the explanation that answers most of my questions. One key point to clarify for you. The image of Marshall is not FROM Flickr. I personally placed it in Flickr, but it is not FROM there. It is FROM Marshall Strabala who personally gave it to me. So, it is not a Flickr image. It is Marshall's. I did try posting the image, as you suggested, from Wikimedia Commons, but the instructions and process are flawed and I had no luck whatsoever. So instead, I uploaded directly to Wikipedia. I am sure I am not the only one having problems posting photos there. I have placed Joan Mills email, (Joan is Marshall's wife) as explanation, and I am not sure what else I can do to prove Public Domain. Let me know if anything further is needed, including if you want an email from Marshall I can try to see if he has time to send one. If you want to give me your phone number, I can have Marshall call you direct from Gensler's office in Shanghai or send you a personal email if needed.

Thank you again for your assistance.

P.S. regarding gallery photos. It seems most illogical that shorter stories get smaller images. Shorter stories obviously have more space to fill so it seems that larger photos would be most appropriate to fill that space. In contrast, longer stories will get more cluttered with large photos and lots of text. So, Wikipedia's (and your) thinking on this matter make little sense. That's my opinion. Based on your idea, I guess this means I will need to considerably extend the length of Marshall's page and then we get larger photos. Will do. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

I really appreciate the lengths at which you are willing to go to to demonstrate you are telling the truth. I completely believe you, but it's not a matter of people believing if you are telling the truth or not, it's all very technical, and to be honest, I have no idea how any of that works. We'll leave it all for a while and see if people notice the possible deletion discussions I have placed up.

I see where you are coming from on your view of large photos to fill up the space left by no text, etc... but that's not how a Wikipedia article should look. There are so many pages in the 'Wikipedia:' namespace that will teach you the basics and the advanced of building an article. Maybe you should spend a bit of time cruising the MoS, that should help you out. But yes, I think we need to increase the length of Strabala's page, after all, he is a leading designer for a few of the soon-to-be world's tallest buildings. --timsdad ^(talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

According to the the Burj Khalifa article (and the several seemingly reliable sources supporting the fact in the article, including this clearly reliable source) and the Adrian Smith (architect) article, Adrian Smith, not Marshall Strabala was the architect of Burj Khalifa. The only source in this article stating otherwise is this one and it may not be reliable. Are there any clearly RSs that support him being the architect of this building? Is there another explanation? I'm going to remove mention of this until it can be explained. Novaseminary (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you are very quick to act but sadly you act without having any facts. Here it is. The Burj Khalifa (formerly called Burj Dubai), like many major buildings worldwide, has multiple architects involved because they require years, not months, to design and plan. Sure, while Adrian Smith, who Mr. Strabala has worked with, may claim that he is “Chief Architect” or other title, there are probably 6-12 architects that can save they had a hand in designing the Burj Khalifa. If you still question this, please talk with a Wikipedia editor who is knowledgable about architecture. There are many reliable mand credible media sources that help demonstrate Mr. Strabala’s involvement in Burj Khalifa, please see these sources many of which are cited in the story, including some from the UAE, where the building stands

Arabian Business, Dubai, UAE: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/architect-reveals-burj-dubai-height-81846.html

Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/features/6556005.html

E-Architect, UK: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/dubai/burj_dubai.htm

Houston Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09/27/newscolumn2.html

Gensler’s own press release announcing Strabala joins firm (release no longer live on Gensler.com): http://www.officenewswire.com/1642

Urbanatomy, Shanghai, http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder

It would be great if you could devote time, as you did here, to some of the dozens of Wikipedia pages on architects and other business professionals that have no sources and are poorly done, unlike this page. You perform such a wonderful service for Wikipedia. Thank you. - Joan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.92.229 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal attack, I note that I asked for facts and posted here (and noted as much in my edit summary). I did not engage in edit wars or make a change wirthout explanation. WP is not a site for people to use as a promotional vehicle, so I did act quickly. Regardless, with this edit, I have restored mention of the building, I hope in better context. Novaseminary (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

With these edits, I tried to accurately reflect Strabala's involvement with this building. Per the NY Times and other reliable sources, Adrian Smith was the lead architect (or at least ended up as that), but Strabala definitely played a role in designing the building. To leave it as just a mention that Strabala designed the building seems to imply he was the only one, or ever the lead, which the RSs do not seem to support. Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Page Edits

After careful review of the page copy, I suggest these page edits:

1. Under the heading “Professional Positions,” it states that “ In 2010, Strabala left Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010.” And sources this information to an unknown Shanghai China-based online publication of questionable reputation called "Urbanatomy." http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder So as to position this in a more neutral fashion as opposed to the current one of a large global company Gensler vs. one lone architect, and not providing Strabala an opportunity for his side of this situation, I suggest changing simply to read: “In 2010, Strabala left Gensler “ (which will be sourced using Houston Business Journal story and not the Urbanatomy publication. All Urbanatomy sources would be stripped from the page. This would be a much fairer and more neutral way of providing this information, without getting into a legal situation which for all we know could be inaccurate (sourced by only one unknown Chinese publication) or already settled.

2. Personal Information For over two years, Strabala’s page has had personal information about where he lives and this information has been approved on numerous occasions by multiple editors. NovaSeminary used his own Wikipedia rule of “cruft,” which he never explained, to delete at 15:12 on 13 May: "==Personal== As of September 2010, Strabala divides his time between homes in Shanghai,Houston, and Chicago." and sources, Houston Business Journal, Marshall Strabala gives new meaning to 'super-tall', Sept 27 2010, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09 What is the rule of “cruft” that NovaSeminary has evidently created for himself. I know the definition of cruft and don’t believe it applies. And, more importantly, why is this information about where he lives not appropriate when the same information is included on thousands of other personal pages for business executives on Wikipedia. This simple one sentence about where Strabala lives tells readers he lives in three different cities on different continents. That’s different than most people, and not something that the readers would otherwise know by reading the story. Afterall, Strabala could live in one city and have offices in three cities, but he doesn’t.

NovaSeminary states that Mr. Strabala is known for his work but not his residences so where he lives is not pertinent. Well, the very same could be used as an excuse to delete reference to the residences for hundreds of business executives like Steve Jobs, architect John C Harkness, archictect Campaion Platt]] and Todd Stitzer, all whom have their single or multiple residence(s) mentioned on their pages. So, unless NovaSeminary is suggesting that the residence references of these and hundreds of other pages for business executives and other celebrities be deleted in WP, then I suggest Strabala's one-sentence residence references stay in. It implies nothing, it simply states the fact and it is properly sourced.

3. LEED Certification For more than two years, Strabala’s page had included this copy: “A member of the American Institute of Architects, Strabala is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles. [3]” The publication Architecture Week was used as the source (see http://www.architectureweek.com/2008/1210/people_and_places.html) In April, NovaSeminary deleted reference to the LEED certification, without any official WP reason, and for a time NovaSeminary had wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that Strabala had. Well, that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced in Architecture Week and many other credible media that have covered him. For example, see EArchitectUK, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/marshall_strabala.htm and Houston Construction News: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KjLBix6LrbIJ:constructionnews.net/pdf_download.lasso?file%3D200605_HO.pdf+marshall+strabala+leed+certification&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi1yB0pxxnldG3TfpJkTd1cADeikvrvcpRfDX9VjNPARwViyTH4vPpWnqxPIV8gDF2BiqTz9ulJPKLA5MvgGCtlgO_SLaaIR7rUGZvssU1_PLgO3T2l9RBkTEmJ4Rk-3jiP28b7&sig=AHIEtbSS10LRHMnx0WK18JByc99SF5H8lw&pli=1

This LEED certification is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. I would like to have that LEED reference put back in the story. Obviously, if someone wants to verify what specific LEED certification that Strabala has, they can contact the USGBC (US Green Building Council) themselves for that minutia. I wouldn't expect them to look it up and find it on Wikipedia. This isn't LEED-ipedia, it's Wikipedia. Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, in several places, including this talk page, Mykjoseph has claimed to personally represent the subject at his PR firm. So I would view these proposed edits accordingly and ask Mykjoseph to clarify his relationship with the subject. But focusing on the substance, here are my quick thoughts (in the order Mykjoseph raised them).

1) The language is neutral and comports with the source which was added by Mykjoseph with this edit. If this source is questionable, why did Mykjoseph add it? It certainly appears the author and photographer had significant access to Strabala in writing it.

2) This person is notable for his work. His residences are irrelevant to that, and in light of the context seem to be intended to portray the subject in a certain light. Perhaps if there were more personal information to balance this out (his wife, publicly reported non-architecture pursuits, etc.) this would be ok (WP:UNDUE). And while other articles having cruft is not a sufficient justification for this one, at least one example given only lists the residence (and the primary residence, not every place the person might own or rent property) in the infobox, not the text. That would be less objectionable here per UNDUE, but I still think it adds nothing to the article and ahould be left out.

3) As noted in my ES, LEED certification applies to buildings, designers are accredited and there are very different types of accreditation (per the accreditor's website). This can certainly go back in after being clarfied and properly sourced (I had initially tagged it as such but no clarification came).

This article should not serve as an advertisment for Strabala. Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, I edited the article reference footnote to include the actual title of the magazine and publisher discussed in point 1 of this section. I am not convinced that this is not an RS, especially since Mykjoseph himself added it, and it was referenced in the talk section above this section by the IP that signed the post as "Joan" (and from which Mykjoseph has also apparently edited recently). Novaseminary (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, I will take up my ongoing questions in this matter in coming days with DR. Your subsequent comments have provided nothing new. I learned of Urbanatomy's questionable reputation in my private emails and phone conversations with colleagues in China; sorry, I do not have copies of those emails/conversations to share with you. I do not have to answer your questions on COI. I have addressed those matters previously many times. This isn't a courtroom and you are not the judge.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with my conclusions above related to content? Somehow I doubt it. But this is the place to work toward consensus. I'm ready as always to try. As for the reliableness of the that's Shanghai source, that very article was covered by a CNN Asia news blog, and the magazine is cited elsewhere in WP. And you felt comfortable enough with its accuracy to add it to the article, having at least in the past represented Strabala. It would take more than your private emails and phone calls to knock it out now (speaking of unsourced allegations...). And you don't even seem to be challenging the accuracy of the minimal language that is there (which doesn't take sides and notes only that there was some sort of dispute, per the source which recounted at least one significant interview with Strabala. Novaseminary (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you have imagined any progress toward resolution and any agreement on my part. I completely disagree with your comments on my points #1, 2 and 3 above, and per my earlier detail provided above on those points. I will take to Editing Assistance in coming days for their review. Thank you.Mykjoseph (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, you just deleted my sentence explaining that Strabala, a community group and Chicago law were in opposition to the Zoning Committee's actions on the Project cited under Local Activism. This information was taken directly from the Chicago Tribune piece and helps explain that the project was much disliked, but passed anyway. That is relevant information for readers to know That overview is now gone with your quick edit. I will add that to my list of questions for Editing Assistance to review.Mykjoseph (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the sentence, I reworked it (and I was the editor who added the section to begin with). But I agree with your subsequent edit inserting the quote. It would be odd to ask for others' opinions in a case where we agree (and nobody else disagrees), but by all means. Novaseminary (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In further reference to the that's Shanghai piece, it is also listed on the main profile for the Flickr site that you, Mykjoseph, added to the article in the EL section, and which purport to be Strabala's Flickr pages. If it is good enough for Strabala to list on his own Flickr page (in addition to the covereage of the article noted above), why not here? As an aside, that Flickr page also links to this WP article as a "Resource" about Strabala. And see the "Question" section below for more examples of this WP article being pointed to for promotional purposes. Novaseminary (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In further response to Mykjoseph's point number 2, WP:NPF (a WP policy) states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability..." There is no reason to include Strabala's residences since it is not relevant to his notability. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tesoro Building and Stalking Behavior

NovaSeminary, can you tell me why the Tesoro Building in San Antonio was deleted from Marshall Strabala's list of building projects? It was sourced properly and he did oversee its design. Is WP (or you) the arbiter of what building qualifies as a building worth mentioning on a page or not? If so, I can find hundreds of buildings by other architects profiled on WP that I guess should also be deleted. Would you like a list of those buildings?

And, can you tell me why have you been "stalking" and seemingly working feverishly over the past several weeks to diminish Marshall Strabala's' accomplishments and work at every point possible? You completely deleted his work on the Burj Dubai, until I argued otherwise. You deleted his LEED certification although it was properly sourced. You deleted reference to his residences while hundreds of other business professionals are cited that way. You deleted in the opening graph that Strabala has designed three of the world's tallest buildings (which is no doubt exceptional) and without justification. I see a definite pattern here that I would appreciate an explanation. You have edited Marshall's page dozens of times over the past six weeks, and many days have done little other editing than to his page. Why the pre-occupation? Is the Marshall Strabala page one of the most important on WP? Based on you actions, it must be? If this issue isn't answered to my satisfaction, I will be glad to share with Editor Assistance for their interpretation of your most unusual and bizzare behavior.Mykjoseph (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

One could ask why you are so concerned with this article. You have edited it many more times over a far longer period than I have. But, your declaration earlier on this very talk page and elswhere that you personally represent Strabla (or did, you have not clarified your current relationship) gives us at least part of that answer. My interest in this article is part of my general interest in preventing WP from being used to house fluff marketing/PR pieces; to follow WP:NPOV. I haven't tried to diminish anything, merely accurately recount the facts as the sources present them (I have no personal knowledge of any of this, after all) and to do so in a neutral way.

As for your question about the Tesoro Building, as I understand it, Strabala has worked on scores of buildings. Of course, listing them all would not be worthwhile (Strabala doesn't even do that on his own website). There needs to be some way to decide which to mention. Those included in the list are considered "notable" so as to avoid focusing on the wrong buildings. As a rough proxy, we should list them if they have a WP article. You might want to take a look at WP:EMBED. Novaseminary (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Before taking my current three questions for additional Dispute Resolution, I have a question to ask you about a past sentence that had been for many months or possibly a few years in the second graph of the Marshall Strabala article and seems fitting. It read (This is slightly shortened version of it):

“Along with the Burj Dubai, he has designed three of what will soon become the world’s ten tallest buildings, including the Shanghai Tower[2] and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center.”

(See this earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=307509620&oldid=307443133) I would like to put that back in as it serves as a key summary of his “supertall” work. I am unsure when it was deleted and why it was.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it implies that he himself designed them. Per the RSs we know that he was only part of a team that designed the Burj, and he didn't even lead the team. That sentence certainly implies more than is supported by the sources. And I would further note that the version you cited to above is filled with exactly the POV fluff that doesn't belong on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will take it up with Dispute Resolution. You responded as I expected.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of my reply do you disagree with? Do you think that language does not imply he was the main designer behind those buildings, or do you disagree with the RSs and think he was the driving force? If one says that an author "wrote three of the ten best-selling novels" wouldn't that lead you to believe s/he was the sole author? And in this case there was a whole firm designing the buildings, with many people who deserve credit (as you mention in a talk section above) so the implication leaves a very inacurrate impression.

The language in there now accurately states his role on Burj. If you want to accurately state his role in other buildings (consistent with WP:UNDUE, etc.) then great. But don't gloss over the facts so this article can be used as a promotional piece. In fact, somebody claiming to be Joan Mills (same name as Strabala's wife) used very similar language and pointed to this very WP in a promotional way in a comment to a blog post discussing, of all things, the that's Shanghai article. And used similar language also pointing here to WP with this blog comment and this post. (And without the pointer to WP, used similar language in another blog comment. And with a pointer to WP, but also acknowledging Adrian Smith's role, sort of, in this blog post comment. And another by "Joan" egregiously hyping, in my opinion, this very WP article with this comment.) I trust that you don't want WP used for promotion, so let's only add neutral, non-promotional language. Novaseminary (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Burj Dubai.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burj Dubai.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reformatting of Page

NovaSeminary, can you provide me a WP reason for why the page was suddenly and considerably reformatted on June 1, 2011, after having used the previous format for three years without a problem, and without consultation with other editors? Suddenly out of nowhere, the page is formatted according to each of Mr. Strabala's employers instead of by listing his works over the years as it had been. This format is contrary to every architect page that I can find on Wikipedia. (see Adrian Smith (architect) for example. Based on your actions, you appear to want to cause considerable trouble on the page on an almost daily basis rather than improve it. With the old format, a reader could easily see the entire list of buildings that Strabala had designed. Now, a reader has to spend considerable time and effort wading through the copy sentence by sentence to find buildings he has done. Architects are not measured according to what firms that they have worked for -- as you have set it up here. They are measured by their achievements -- as the page had been previously set-up. I can add this to my discussion with Dispute Resolution if this isn't resolved to my satisfaction. And, I will include a request to DR that you be barred from any future editing of this page. Thank you.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of buildings was an embedded list. Per WP:EMBED, such information should be relayed in prose as a general rule. WP is an encyclopedia, not a resume. The recounting of his projects is perfectly appropriate as prose. WP is not here to serve as a vehicle to most effectively tout Strabala's accomplishments.

Many other architects' articles (including Adrian Smith (architect)) are terrible. If they are ever to get to good article status, they would have to be reworked (as I did to this article). How you or your (former) client would prefer the article look is irrelevant to the extent it violates WP policies, guidelines, and consensus. I fear your, at least former, COI is leading you to put interests other than WP's first as you edit this article.

And please do not make threats related to this article. That is textbook WP:OWN behavior. This article is not yours. They won't work and could backfire and get you blocked (for COI or other reasons). Novaseminary (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take it up with DR. Thank you and have a wonderful day!Mykjoseph (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC) In addition, this quote below that you have added is a violation of the Red Flag rule that requires 2 sources for such controversial copy. I will bring this to DR as well. "In a 2007 interview, Adrian Smith noted that ###### was up for but did not make partner at SOM in what Smith described as a "power move by the New York office."Mykjoseph (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Strabala didn't make partner, right? Or else that would have been noted in the same sources that noted he left SOM as associate partner and those sources are then wrong. That can't be your problem with the sentence.

This quote, attributed because it is pretty harsh toward SOM (not Strabala), explains why, in one notable collegue's opinion, Strabala failed to make partner. You are not objecting to the "power play" language, are you?

If not, that leaves the fact that Strabala was up for partner as the only fact not covered in multiple sources. How is that inflamatory? And even if it is, it is properly attributed (to the person making the statement and to the RS in which it appears) and is highly relevant, and as a single sentence capping that particular stage of Strabala's career, it meets WP:UNDUE. Novaseminary (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I further refined the sentence with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It still does not meet the Red Flag rule requirements. It's added to my growing DR list and I will cc WP legal on these matters since several of your edits touch on possible legal issues. Thank you and hope it's a nice day in Virginia! Mykjoseph (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which of the three bullets of WP:REDFLAG do you think this violates? Is BusinessWeek not mainstream enough for you? I'll give you a while to remove your legal threat, but I do note that you were previously warned about this behavior. Making a threat and then saying it is not a threat does not make a threat not a threat. But if you feel strongly, and you still represent Strabala, feel free to follow WP:LIBEL. It has a convenient email link for you to use. Novaseminary (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Format of page

NovaSeminary, in the past few days, a colleague checked with two WP editors (see information below) that have considerably more editing experience on architecture and architects than you or me, and both said that building lists with prose is fine for use in architects' pages. What do you say to that? If you don’t have a good explanation for supporting your prose-only format (and making Mr. Strabala’s page likely the only architect’s page on Wikipedia in all prose) then I can revert the Strabala page back to its prose and list format. Or, if you still disagree, I can take this (and my other points) up with DR this week and let them know of your refusal to accept this feedback from 3 editors, including me. Thank you and have a nice day.

See response from Amandajm under “ Lists” graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidSycamore

See response from Acroterion under "Quick Question" heading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Acroterion

Mykjoseph (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am taken aback. This brand new editor, DavidSycamore, is a collegue of yours, Mykjoseph? I wonder if he has a similar COI? With one of his four edits on WP as of my writing this, he just edited a previous comment of yours on this page with this edit which is highly inappropriate. And with two other edits seems to have made the requests you, Mykjospeh, noted here and here. And yet, in neither of those posts did he even mention this article. This talk page is the place to discuss this article. And please do not meat puppet or otherwise violate WP:SOCK.

As for the substance of your problem with prose, in the section above I noted why I reformatted the article to comply with WP guidelines. And if you look at the archotect articles listed as FAs or even GAs on the Architecture project, you'll see they are prose, without lists (e.g., William Bruce (architect)).

There has not been feedback on this from three editors including you. There has been feedback from you, an editor with at least a former COI. Again, please do not violate WP:MEAT. Please do follow the normal dispute resolution processes if you would like to take this further.

Novaseminary (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Preparing note for DR. One reason WP is losing very talented writers as has been widely publicized -- is editors like you. Congrats. You must be proud.Mykjoseph (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Link

I will discuss link with DR, not with you. Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New Language

NovaSeminary, you have recently altered copy to read that Strabala "has been credited" and "has been reported" to have designed buildings. Why is this? These are unnecessary, namby-pamby words that are unsupported and "invented" by you. I imagine you have added these words given the recent lawsuits against Strabala, that I understand in architecture circles will be thrown out of court because of no merit. They amount to harassment. You might keep in mind that defendants in the US are innocent until proven guilty so these legal actions should make no difference in copy whatsoever, given the words previously as stated are based on sourced material, and your words "credited" and "reported" -- are not; they are purely "your invention." Wikipedia is not supposed to present orignal research, or didn't you know that. I will be writing DR soon on several of your edits, so if you disagree with this, I will gladly add this point to my growing list. Also, all architects (i.e., Adrian Smith) as you know have a short list of Notable Buildings in their Infobox. You have deleted Strabala's buildings for no reason. If this edit is not undone, I will present your completely biased and unsupported change to DR, as well. Have a lovely day!Mykjoseph (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An accusation of bias from somebody who has claimed to personally represent Strabala is quite something. Anyway, I also noted that his departure from Gensler under disputed circumstances was reported for the same reason (which is softer than the "let go" from Gensler language used in the source, which is still listed on Strabala's Flickr profile, though the WP link has been removed as has the media contact point to Michael Pirages). The fact is, there is much in dispute about what Strabala did, claimed to do to (including, it would seem, to reporters), and what his former firms did or didn't do. It is not our job to take sides, as you seem to me to have done. We could go with less eqivocation based on some sources, but then we would need to go stronger the other way, too, in noting how Strabala was let go from Gensler, didn't make partner, etc., to avoid POV. It also strikes me as interesting that Strabala was sued for using nearly identicle language to that you added to this article and sought repeatedly to reinsert (the 3 of the 10 tallest buildings language). Please try not to let your relationship or former relationship or whatever cloud you judgment here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, no doubt my judgement is a lot less cloudy that your biased judgement, given your many unsupported and unwarranted aedits Mykjoseph (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, if you intend to seek dispute resolution, please do so now instead of using it as a vague threat against others editing this page. You've had more than enough time now to formulate your request. Regards, Danger (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Danger, I will take my sweet time, and you know little of my issues with NovaSeminary. Stay out of what is none of your business. Mykjoseph (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As an editor and administrator, disruptive behavior is in fact my business. Editors who act in a disruptive manner, which includes edit warring and threatening other editors, may be blocked. If edit warring continues on this page, it may be protected to prevent further disruption. --Danger (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Full name / article move?

Per WP:UCN, and the relevant examples there (Bill Clinton, H. H. Asquith, Snoop Dogg, and Hulk Hogan), the person's full name should appear in bold in the lead, though the most commonly used name serves as the article title. There seems little doubt that Strabala's full name is "Jay Marshall Strabala". In various places "Marshall Strabala", "J. Marshall Strabala", and "Jay Marshall Strabala" are used by RSs (and press releases). It seems that "J. Marshall Strabala" is used most often, and by the subject himself (per his firm's website), so I propose moving the article to "J. Marshall Strabala" and leaving the lead "Jay Marshall Strabala". Novaseminary (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Per the Bill Clinton page, Bill Clinton, his most common,lyh used name, is the name of the page, but there is reference to Mr. Clinton's full name later. Contrary to your opinion, there are many hundreds more citations (news media stories and online citations) using Marshall Strabala than using Jay Marshall Strabala. So, I would keep the page called Marshall Strabala, and the Jay Marshall Strabala can be referenced as his likely (we don't know for sure, do we?) birthname and a secondary name. 13 of 16 citations (81 percent) used on his Wikipedia page currently use Marshall Strabala. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Also see results below of this Google search for evidence of the preponderance of use of "Marshall Strabala" versus "Jay Marshall Strabala". Strabala also uses the shorter version of his name on his Facebook, LinkedIn and Flickr pages, as you will see from the Google search results. And all media stories on his Flickr page use Marshall Strabala, not J. or Jay Marshall Strabala, see http://www.flickr.com/people/architectural-design/:

Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?q=marshall%20strabala&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

Jay Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?q=marshall%20strabala&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#q=jay+marshall+strabala&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Xgt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivnso&ei=6JwITumLI4rrgQeqkK3yBg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cfd4938828d57dcb&biw=1165&bih=728

(Many of the Jay Marshall Strabala mentions have been in the past month only.) Mykjoseph (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Google News archived results on Marshall Strabala: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#ds=n&pq=jay%20marshall%20strabala&hl=en&authuser=0&cp=0&gs_id=30&xhr=t&q=marshall+strabala&qe=bWFyc2hhbGwgc3RyYWJhbGE&qesig=w9MH7M4beDCGIJb1i__cbQ&pkc=AFgZ2tlq-LN_jwF6sZrLAJqmR50hXBtnqJj50v_7w8eAG2JfDc2qU-7BrZ-jFjg8kA12xxjzKJHIj4y__CVOMwiHT_7PPPKpzQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

...compared to Google news archive results on Jay Marshall Strabala http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#ds=n&pq=j%20marshall%20strabala&hl=en&authuser=0&cp=3&gs_id=76&xhr=t&q=jay+marshall+strabala&qe=amF5IG1hcnNoYWxsIHN0cmFiYWxh&qesig=Lch7WJKFt2au6spuX2Xt5w&pkc=AFgZ2tlq-LN_jwF6sZrLAJqmR50hXBtnqJj50v_7w8eAG2JfDc2qU-7BrZ-jFjg8kA12xxjzKJHIj4y__CVOMwiHT_7PPPKpzQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=jay+marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

...and J Marshall Strabala http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marshall+strabala&scoring=n&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#sclient=psy&hl=en&authuser=0&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=j+marshall+strabala&pbx=1&oq=j+marshall+strabala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1545l1889l8l2l2l0l0l0l0l197l383l0.2l2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=60f956f31b39d940&biw=1270&bih=895

Mykjoseph (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• Issue 1: In June, Editor 1 added this copy: “In 2010, (architect's last name) was reported to have been let go from Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala In recent days, Editor 1 edited this comment to read that the architect was "let go" from the firm. This information was sourced to “That’s Shanghai” magazine, an entertainment/listings magazine published by Urbanatomy in Shanghai China at http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder This sentence fits the WP:REDFLAG rule: “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.” If Editor 1 believes this exceptional claim about a supposed (legal) dispute and that the architect was "let go" that the architect had six months ago is appropriate then I believe he would need an exceptional source to support it. Editor 2 does not believe that Urbanatomy’s “That’s Shanghai” magazine, a monthly magazine with an unknown circulation geared to English-speaking residents and visitors, can be considered exceptional. Editor 2 believes it would be best to state that the architect left Gensler in 2010 and not make reference to the circumstances. This could be easily sourced with various sources.

• Issue 2, Prose/List Format: For more than two years, the page had been in a professional and concise prose and Building list format, with prose describing his background and key achievements, and a bulleted list or gallery of about 10 photos of buildings he had designed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=408403761&oldid=407687287 This format has been approved by multiple editors over the past two years. In May, Editor 1 said that the Gallery had to be deleted because WP is moving away from having galleries of photos on people. Editor 2 does not know if this is true. In the meantime, most other architects that you find on WP do have galleries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=426921654&oldid=426914530

In May/June 2011, Editor 2 made additional edits when he deleted the list of buildings altogether and converted the page to be entirely prose as it now is. Editor 2 feels that the page should have a combination of both prose and building list, as most every architect on WP is formatted in this manner. See examples at Architect Helmut Jahn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Jahn Architect Eero Saarinen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_Saarinen Should the page be prose and building list format, or prose format only?

• Issue 3, Notable Buildings: In WP, most every major architect has his/her buildings that they are known for designing highlighted in their Infobox. This was the case for about two years on this page as well true for two years or so on this page as well until in June Editor 1 edited it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=433390089 , and deleted these buildings (Shanghai Tower, Burj Khalifa, 5 Canada Square, LG Arts Center, Hess Tower) and his reasong was that they are not “his (the architect's) work.” Editor 2 says this is contrary to possibly hundreds of architects featured on WP have their “Buildings” posted in their Infoboxes, whether the architect owns the firm or not when the work was designed. See these examples: Adrian Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Smith_(architect)

Daniel Libeskind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Libeskind Should the notable Buildings be mentioned in the architect's Infobox, or not? And if not, why not?

• Issue 4, Introductory Graphs: For a few years, this page had a description in the second graph: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=358843977 -- that mentioned that this architect had designed the Burj Khalifa, as well as two other supertall buildings, the Shanghai Tower and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center. Editor 2 thought this was relevant because there are less than 5 architects in the world that have worked on more than two of the world's supertall buildings. This architect has worked on three of them. Editor 2 had previously summarized this simply as being that this architect “designed” these buildings (not trying to imply that there weren’t any others. Editor 1 thought this was too promotional. In May, Editor 1 deleted that copy, removed reference to the types of buildings this architect had designed (i.e., office buildings, performing arts venues), and changed it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=428751539. Now with Editor 1 edits, the reader does not learn what types of buildings that this architect has designed. And the reader doesn’t learn that this architect has designed any other supertall buildings until the reader gets to the SOM section in the middle of the page. In fact, the reader never learns on the page that the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center is one of the tallest buildings in the world, unless they click the building’s page link and visit that separate page. And the reader doesn’t know that he designed Shanghai Tower and that it will be the world’s second tallest building, until the Gensler section of the page. Should the description of the architect's work be restored closer to the second graph cited above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=35884397 ) and again reference the type of buildings that the architect has designed, or, should it use the current generic language of "design of notable buildings"?

• Issue 5, Personal Information: For about two years, the page has had this brief mention to where he lives and it has been approved by multiple editors. It had read," As of September 2010, (architect's last name) divides his time between homes in Shanghai, Houston, and Chicago." and used the source of Houston Business Journal, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09

On May 13, 2011, Editor 1 used his own rule of “cruft,” to delete this sentence. Editor 1 stated that the architect' residences are not pertinent because the architect is not known for his homes but rather for his Architecture work. This could also be said for these business executives who are not known for their homes either: Apple head Steve Jobs whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for computers. Todd Stitzer, a business executive whose two residences are mentioned and he is known for his business leadership. Architect John C Harkness whose residence is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. French Architect Jean Nouvel whose residence in Paris is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Business executive Bonnie Newman, whose residence is mentioned, and she is known for her educational positions held. Should the residences be mentioned or not?

• Issue 6, LEED Certification: For more than two years, this page included this copy:

“A member of the American Institute of Architects, (architect's last name) is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles.” The well-known trade publication Architecture Week was used as the source. (Update to Editors: It would be more accurate for the words “LEED certified” to be changed to “LEED accredited.”) In April, Editor 1 deleted reference to the LEED certification, without an official WP reason, and for a time Editor 1 wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that this architect had. According to Editor 2, that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced in many respected media that have covered him. For example, EArchitectUK and Houston Construction News. This LEED accreditation is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. Editor 1 points out that most architects do not typically communicate the specific type of LEED accreditation that they have. Instead they simply list it as “LEED AP.” See examples here from LinkedIn and other sources: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robandersonarchitect http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothykentaia Should the "LEED AP certification" referenced be used or not?

• Issue 7, Website Link: For some months, this architect’s WP page has had the link for his 2DEFINE Architecture website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=422710552 In late May, Editor 1 said that this link could not be on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=431024085 At some point, Editor 2 suggested that this link be posted but called “2Define Architecture website instead of “Official Website.” Editor 2 said this because saying “Official Website implies that it is the architect’s official website, but in reality it is his firm’s. The firm includes other partners so it can’t be both his “Official Website” and the firm’s . See Editor 1's edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=433067126 Should the site link be used or not?

• Issue 8, Lawsuits: Within about 24 hours after the lawsuits were filed by the architect's two prior employers, Editor 1 had added the suits to the second sentence of the page, and to a special new graph called "Employer Lawsuits. Editor 2 attempted to add a sentence to balance and make this more neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=434885152&oldid=434845956

Editor 1 did not accept this and undid the edit. Editor 2 wants neutral/balanced language added to both the second sentence and the Employer Lawsuit graph to support that: 1) There is an assumption of innocence as it applies to civil cases (I am not a lawyer so I am unsure how to phrase this), which not every reader would know. and 2) that there is a problem in the US with the filing of frivolous lawsuits (as these two suits are expected to be, from my architect sources). Frivolous lawsuits have been raised as an issue across many business fields, from medicine to politics, and covered by many US media outlets. Should the copy be kept as is or should language be added per points 1 and 2 above?

• Issue 9, Page Name: Marshall Strabala is the architect's most commonly used name and cited in more than 90 percent of the media stories and other online citations. Jay Marshall Strabala is the likely birthname (we do not know if there is an additional middle or family name?) according to two recent Chicago stories (WLS Radio, Sun Times) about the lawsuits. Should Marshall Strabala or Jay Marshall Strabala be the page name? Following Bill Clinton's page naming protocol, the page is called "Bill Clinton" (his most commonly used name) but there is reference to his full name. Should this page follow the same format?

• Issue 10, Architect's name: Related to Issue 9 (see above), should Marshall Strabala be the name first used to start the lead sentence of the article, as it has been, or Jay Marshall Strabala, his evident birth name? Again, most sources cited on the page use the short version. Two stories this month on the lawsuits use Jay Marshall Strabala.

Mykjoseph (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I will briefly address each of Mykjoseph's issues in order. As a general matter, any commenters to this RfC should know that has Mykjospeh has claimed to be an individual who runs a PR shop and has claimed to personally represent Strabala on this very talk page. Mykjoseph also heavily edited another article for a company for which an "associate" of his at his firm had previosuly done PR work. That article was subsequently delete at this AfD. It was the blatently promotional aspect of this Strabala article that caused me to scrutinize this article to begin with.

• Issue 1 -There is no mention of a legal dispute in this sentence, nor has there been for some time. It now reads: "Strabala left Gensler in 2010, reportedly having been 'let go' by the firm." This is not an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG, especially in light of the fact that Marshall Strabala failed to make partner at his first firm, and was sued this month by both of the firm's at which he was formerly an employee. Further, it was Mykjospeh who first suggested the that's Shanghai source in a post here on this talk page. (Mykjospeh has admitted to making all of the contributions from 216.80.92.229.) The source was also discussed in a CNN Asia blog post. The author (and photographers) appear to have undertaken quite a lengthy interview and have significant access to Strabala. And Strabala listed the article on his Flickr profile (and a link to this WP article, too) until recently. The "let go" phrase is a direct quote from the source.

• Issue 2 -This is not a resume. WP:EMBED clearly states a preference for prose vs. lists. I did not delete reference to the buildings. I moved those mentions into the text of the article and added clarifications (based on the sources) of Strabala's roles in the buildings.

• Issue 3 -The buildings are already listed in the prose. Listing them in the infobox leads to the impression that Strabala designed these buildings by himself.

• Issue 4 -The language Mykjoseph had placed in the article was promotional and inaccurate. Marshall Strabala was part of a team that designed these buildings. I reworked the lead to accurately reflect his role.

• Issue 5 -As I previously noted on this talk page, WP:NPF (a WP policy) states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability..." There is no reason to include Strabala's residences since it is not relevant to his notability.

• Issue 6 -I would love some (non-promotional) version of the LEED language to go back in. I had originally tagged it. There are several different types of LEED AP accreditation (including for Homes, Neighborhood Development, and Interior Design), some far more relevant to this architect's work than others. And Strabala does not appear in the LEED accreditation professional directory, so without an RS indicating which accreditation he has, we can only speculate.

• Issue 7-His profile at his firm's website is probably fine per WP:ELOFFICIAL. (His Linkedin profile is already an official EL, and his firm's website is a link off of that profile anyway, so it might not meet the requirements for multiple official ELs, but I would not object.) However, a general link to his firm's website's home page fails WP:ELNO #19. And it is Mykjoseph who continues to represent that the profile is not Strabala's official site. If not, even the profile fails WP:ELNO 1.

• Issue 8 -The section discussing the lawsuits against Strabala is neutral and clearly notes that the companies have made allegations. Adding anything about frivolous lawsuits, or more bizarrely, the presumption of innocence, would introduce POV (or imply Strabala had been arrested).

• Issue 9 -The article is currently titled "Marshall Strabala", which is apparently what Mykjospeh wants. I am fine with this per WP:UCN (though Strabala himself on his website and in press releases uses "J. Marshall Strabala").

• Issue 10 -As I mentioned before on this talk page, per WP:UCN, and the relevant examples there (Bill Clinton, H. H. Asquith, Snoop Dogg, and Hulk Hogan), the person's full name should appear in bold in the lead, though the most commonly used name serves as the article title. There seems little doubt that Strabala's full name is "Jay Marshall Strabala". In various places "Marshall Strabala", "J. Marshall Strabala", and "Jay Marshall Strabala" are used by RSs (and press releases).

Novaseminary (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1

To further comment on Novaseminary's position on this issue. First, the fact that there have been two lawsuits, in my opinion, is not a negative. If these suits are proven against the architect, yes, that's a negative. The fact that their have been two obviously coordinated lawsuits (filed within 24 hours of each other) for comparable reasons can mean as little as these archictectural firms -- which are no doubt fierce competitors for the same multi-million dollar projects in Asia as the architect's firm -- have extra time on their hands and US$350 to file a civil suit (see filing information and it shows the cost to file a suit is about that amount). Secondly, the fact that the architect did not make partner is not a "blight" as NovaSeminary would portray it, on this person's character. As Adrian Smith had spoken in the story, there were a number of people who did not make partner at S-O-M, to Smith's surprise. Novaseminary, attempts to portray everything in the harshest light possible about this person. As proof, Novaseminary has personally added every one of the negative elements about this architect in the past two months.) So, that is why I believe the "let go" statement, still stands as as rare negative portrayal on this page that, notably, is not covered by mainstream media, as WP RED FLAG says should cover such info to have it presented here. "That's Shanghai" is definitely NOT mainstream or respected media, by any definition (it doesn't even have a confirmed circulation figure), and is the only source that NovaSeminary has cited for this information. If NovaSeminary wants to include it so badly, why can't he find another source that confirms the "let go" info? He can't, that's why -- and this info ("let go") may very well not be true. Is that the kind of info that WP wants to cover? And, no Novaseminary, I don't own this article, like you evidently do - based on your constant major and condescending edits without any input at all. And, no, I won't step back from this DR effort, with your little offering today. It this effort is not successful with RFC, I will take all issues back to Mediation, (they will have been to Mediation and Rfc, and back, so that shows my considerable effort in this process) with or without your Approval. The Mediators can make a decision without your agreement if need be. [User:Mykjoseph|Mykjoseph]] (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Mykjoseph (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4 - Comment: As credited here, this architect led team on Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet and other buildings. This is just as multiple architects including Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa -- ALL who have their buildings mentioned in their Infoboxes -- have been credited. And this was despite Smith not being the only architect on Burj Khalifa, as shown from this article. Again, further evidence of NovaSeminary treating this architect as different than all other architects on WP.Mykjoseph (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the "let go" language is not exceptional and does not come under WP:REDFLAG, especially in light of subsequent events. Furthermore, the language notes that it was "reported", it sourced to a piece which was based on a substantial interview with Strabala, and which itself was covered by another media outlet. Mykjoseph himself suggested the source on this very talk page, and Marshall Strabala himself previously linked to the article on what purports to be his Flickr profile. The link was only removed after the source was used to support this sentence.

Despite all of that, I would agree to removing that part of the sentence (pending additional confirmation) if Mykjoseph is willing to drop the rest of his issues and move on promising to comply with WP:COI's suggestions when editing on behalf of current or former clients or family members or the like. I think having been "let go" by an employer pales in comparison to having been sued by that employer (and another), so I'm no longer worried about this article being a whitewash puff piece, so long as Mykjoseph relinquishes ownership of it.

Novaseminary (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The sheer fact you view two totally unproven and related corporate lawsuits as supposed strong material for this page, is evidence enough for me that your thinking is totally out-of-whack with reality. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I view the lawsuits, at this point, as evidence of nothing more than the fact that Gensler and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill are displeased in some way for some reason, rightly or wrongly, with Marshall Strabala. The lawsuits themselves, even if every word in them is a lie, seem like pretty strong evidence of that. And I only care about the lawsuits because they were covered in multiple RSs. I don't really care about Strabala, his former firms, the buildings in question, or where Strabala likes to fish. My care here is to keep WP neutral and not allow it to be used for promotion. And I agree with one of your statements above. You have gone to considerable efforts; I just wish they hadn't been to add promotional material about a former client of yours. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Resolved - I removed all of the language that offended Mykjoseph. I still think it was fine, but did so to streamline this RfC (a little, at least), to show good faith, and because I don't think it ultimately matters much. Obviously, if other editors feel more strongly that it should be in, we will need to revisit this. Novaseminary (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues 7 & 9 Resolved? - I reinserted the link to Strabala's firm profile. I never had a problem with this, just linking to his firm's homepage or calling the profile "2DEFINE website" or similar. Also, the article is currently titled "Marshall Strabala". I am fine with that. I merely suggested in an earlier talk that we might want to move ot to "J. Marshall Strabala" since that is what Strabala uses on his own website (see his profile just discussed) and in past press releases. This does not affect the issue in 10. But, can we consider these two issues resolved, too? Novaseminary (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I will proceed with ongoing DR of my remaining issues, if the RfC doesn't settle things.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching but not commenting. Hoping that you are able to get other folks involved or possibly that bringing the process is more open would be an impetus. I know Novaseminary well and, 30,000' view, they have been doing some not-nice things here, possibly better in the last few days. My personal guess is that Mykjoseph has some potential wp:coi considerations that must be kept at bay. Maybe a balance can emerge. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NovaSeminary, I am ready to proceed with additional DR actions. If you have not changed your position on my remaining issues, I will proceed.Mykjoseph (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly do what you would like. However, I would consider reposting your RfC and in doing so refining your RfC to a few suggestions that you would prefer to have implemented on the article and then give the reason why relying on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think what you initially posted had very little chance of ever attracting comment because it was very long, rambling, and at times more focused on me then on the article. You might want to take a look at the other pending RfCs on the Biography RfC Board. I would also encourage you to work toward creating consensus, not "winning" DR. I tried to above, and it is the way things operate here at WP. Also keep in mind that if others, especially admins, look deeply at these issues, your relationship to Strabala is likely to be an issue as are the ways this article was essentially used as an advertisement or resume for Strabala as I outlined in a section above, not in the ad hominem way I have been attacked above, but as explanation and illumination of the POV I think you have tried to introduce here whether you meant it to be promotional POV or not. Novaseminary (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, you should also probably let this RfC run its course before trying any other DR steps. For more, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. Novaseminary (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i think that mykjoseph and novaseminary should take a self-imposed break from this article for 10 days or so. let it rest. let others play with it, read it, understand it and make changes as necessary. then, and only then, come back to the talk page and discuss it again. enough edit warring. Soosim (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article in over 2 1/2 weeks anyway. I would be happy if other editors without a relationship to the subject of the article got involved. Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

outside comment

My opinion, not definitive judgements, of course, though for simplicity I worded them rather starkly. .

1. "let go" is a vague and negative term. In the absence of multiple reliable impartial sources, it should be "left Gensler" If he technically resigned, it should be "resigned" regardless of the circumstances that may have led to it. This is pretty basic BLP policy.
2. A list of major buildings is appropriate in architect articles, lists of works are normal practice is all articles on creative professionals, and are much clearer than prose. EMBED is not relevant in this context. The intention is not to use lists for arguments or explanations; individual items go in lists.
3. The most important work or works for which he was the principal designer should go in the infobox. It does not imply sole designer.
4. Similarly, it is assumed that most major projects have several cooperating designers. The person who led the team is the principal designer and had primary responsibility. We follow the wording of sources in assigning roles. Punctuation and sequence in a source is relevant, unless the listing is alphabetic.
5. Some degree of background is normal in biographies. I think the list of residences would be especially relevant for an architect as implying possible influences.
6. LEED goes in if there is a source, not otherwise. The sources are followed for how to describe it.
7. The website of a professional is often that of his firm. It should be listed and described properly. [http:... subject's website at firm] or [http:... website of subject's firm]
8. Lawsuits are mentioned if they are significant to the persons work and reliably reported. If they are withdrawn or settled ,great care is needed with the language. Withdrawal does not imply exoneration, and settlement does not imply guilt. "accused" and "charged" and similar are loaded words., "was sued regarding a dispute over ..." is more neutral
9. The only way of knowing a persons preference for name is normally the name they use on their own sources, or their proven statement. What is stated here about preferences unless proven via OTRS or sources is not relevant, but if this is not consequential my own opinion is it does not matter , if everyone involved is satisfied
10. The full name appears in bold in the lead, as appropriate unambiguous identifying information, but it can be in parenthesis if not the preferred name.

DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts in response to DGG's comments:

Issue 1 - Irrelevant. The language protested in the RfC was changed last month and is no longer in dispute.

Issue 2 - I'm not sure why WP:EMBED does not apply. The architects who are the subject of FAs do not have lists (as noted above). I would not oppose a list if placed in proper context (noting who did what on the building, etc.), but a list does not lend itself to that.

Issue 3 - I am fine adding to the info box buildings which are notable (i.e., have a WP article) and for which there are RSs to support the fact that Strabala is the "principal designer". That would leave out Burj Khalifa and other buildings for which Strabala was clearly not the principal designer. There have been lawsuits (as noted, with sources in the article) that dispute Strabala's role in several buildings, so the sourcing would need to be strong, not just regurgitations of facts Strabala gave a local reporter.

Issue 4 - I agree. Mykjoseph's language did not do this. The current language does.

Issue 5 - Background is appropriate, but gratuitous mentions of where Strabala apparently has residences fails WP:NPF. DGG, does NPF not apply here? If it does not, then I would note that the Chicago Tribune article mentions Strabala's address back in 1999, which is itself a notable building. That seemed to meet NPF, but Mykjoseph took it out. I find it interesting that on Strabala's firm website, he notes his firm's Chicago office address is in the same notable apartment building as the Tribune noted Strabala lived in back in 1999.

Issue 6 - I agree. But the LEED mention needs a good source that mentions which LEED it is. This is all the more true because, as I mentioned above, Strabala does not appear in the official LEED accreditation professional directory. Self-reporting this is not enough to establish it as a fact, or to establish its relevance (WP:UNDUE - it could have been for an area entirely unrelated to what he does now).

Issue 7 - Irrelevant. As noted above, this item is also note in dispute. This has not been an issue in several weeks.

Issue 8 - The version of the lawsuit discussion in place all month is neutral, does not say "charged" or anything like it, and clearly notes that the plaintiffs are alleging various things without implying the allegations are true or false. That fact is clearly supported and undoubtedly true (even if the plaintiffs are entirely wrong).

Issue 9 - Irrelevant (as DGG noted). Strabala himself has used "J. Marshall Strabala" and "Marshall Strabala". "Marshall Strabala" is fine.

Issue 10 - Agree that it currently appears appropriately. But this should not be in parenthesis even if Strabala prefers it that way, unless the parenthesis are needed to explain the context (maiden names, former names, etc.).

In sum, I really only stronglyt disagree with DGG on Issue 2. This is different than listing books, or plays, or films. But if limited to an appropriate, well-sourced and contextualized list (not as the prior promotional versions of the article had been), I have less of an objection. But if the point is to turn this into a resume, I object strongly. We also disagree on Issue 5. I don't think throw-away mentions of where he lives meet NPF, except for his residence in 1999 actually being a notable building itself and covered in the Chicago Tribune; but I don't think this issue is really a big deal.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Protest of High-Rise Development

NovaSeminary, this was a city meeting, not a protest, and you should know better. You are so good at making things inflammatory and negative --- that are obviously not. If this heading isn't reverted soon to Community Involvement or another more WP-appropriate and neutral heading, I will make this item #4 or #5 for Dispute Resolution. Thank you and have a wonderful day. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:OWN. I think "Local activism" accurately and neutrally describes the paragraph. "Community involvement" is far less accurate and sounds like a press release. Since we couldn't agree on a short description, I thought expanding it would be a way to do avoid oversimplification. I'll take another crack. Novaseminary (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer "local activism", but I have no problem (other than its lack of elegance or descriptive value) with what Mykjoseph changed the section heading to with this edit, so I'll leave it alone. Novaseminary (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I have split the difference (as I see it) between Mykjoseph's preferred "Community invovlement" and my preferred "Local activism", by renaming the section "Local involvement". Novaseminary (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Novaseminary recently thought this item so important to put this into the lead sentence yesterday (another editor quickly removed it) I did some fact checking on this section. At the Zoning Chicago hearing at least 33 people spoke on the microphone that day and 600 condo-owners took 4 buses to City Hall that day. Also Mr. Strabala sought and received approval of SOM (his currently employee at that time) prior to speaking so as to not cause any problems or conflicts for the firm or himself. As to the "one of several" how about "one of out 33" or maybe "one out of dozens"? Also I am trying to understand what this section is relevant to it seems to be rather innocuous footnote in someones life - so it seems like at worst as a designer fo tall buildings he might be a NIMBY. Also the cites from the tribune source are not accurate is appears that "[the Zoning Committee] amended the ordinance to allow the project to proceed even if it contradicts zoning ordinances". Okay so on first read this sounds a bit like a Chicago a political favor between the developer Abhrams and Zoning Committee - what does it have to do with Mr. Strabala. As such some of the text should be updated. Contrast the current Wiki text

In 1999, Strabala was one of several people to testify before the Chicago City Council Zoning Committee against a high-rise development at 840 Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Illinois.[19] Strabala lived nearby and was concerned that the high-rise would be "out of scale with the neighborhood".[19] Despite opponents' efforts, and that the project would "flout existing law", the Zoning Committee approved an ordinance that authorized the project. (emphasis added)

With the actually text form the citation

Strabala also disputed the developer's interpretation of the city zoning ordinances, saying Abrams was not permitted under the code to build as large a project as LR Development has proposed.

Reuben Hedlund, a former City Plan Commission chairman and an attorney representing Strabala and other residents opposed to the project, said the Plan Commission violated the law by failing to hold a community hearing for residents.

After Hedlund reiterated Strabala's objections to the application of the zoning law, Natarus amended the ordinance to allow the project to proceed even if it contradicts zoning ordinances.

At 3 p.m., after more than three hours of testimony, the Zoning Committee voted to approve the project. (emphasis added)

The point is Strabala was correct and if this is on his page (which the entire section seems irrelevant) then it should accurately portray that - the ordinance was amended "Natarus amended the ordinance to allow the project to proceed even if it contradicts zoning ordinances"

108.75.223.67 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER

RSs?

Does anyone have any support for the E-architect pages cited in the article (notes 1, 8, and 9 in this latest version) as being reliable sources? Are these pages on the site edited/reported or are they user generated? The page cited in the first note, especailly, seems not to be a news piece, but a profile. Per this page, profiles on that site are sold advertising pieces, not news pieces. If that is the case with these, third-party secondary sources would be much better refs to support the facts supported by these sources. Novaseminary (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to adding mention of two lawsuits against Strabala, I removed his own e-architect site as a source and the corresponding facts that weren't otherwise sourced with this edit. The two pages for particular buildings are still there and tagged. I think they should go, too, but I will wait a bit. Novaseminary (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the two remaining E-architect citations with this edit. They seemed to be to pages on the site that are user provided as opposed to the in-house author-written material (though this is not entirely clear). I also removed the facts sourced to those sources that I couldn't find in an RS and one fact that was not even sourced to one of the E-architect pages. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question on InfoBox

NovaSeminary, based on your comments above, if I interpret them correctly, (Your quote: "I am fine adding to the info box buildings which are notable (i.e., have a WP article) and for which there are RSs to support the fact that Strabala is the "principal designer") you agree that it is appropriate for Marshall Strabala's Infobox to include reference to his "Buildings", such as Hess Tower, Shanghai Tower and [[Houston Ballet.}} These are all buildings that his leading design role has been cited once or multiple times in media quoted as sources in the Marshall Strabala article. Because of the current PR (peer review) status of the article, it appears that my edits to the Infobox are not being procesesd, so I would ask that you add these buildings to the Infobox section, or, explain how I can do that myself with the current PR (peer review status in progress. Thank you. If this does not meet with your acceptance, I will take to Third Opinion and/or other DR steps. Mykjoseph (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are going on about. There are, as far as I can tell, no restrictions on editing this page, it is not undergoing any peer review or formal copy edit request by the Guild of Copy Editors and you are free to make any changes you like. You did, however, muck up the infobox template. See {{Infobox person}} for a list of accepted parameters; any other parameters (a parameter looks like "foo = X") are just ignored by the software. I've fixed the ones that you attempted to insert. --Danger (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Danger, you might be a bit more civil in your comments. Or, is that how you talk to everyone? I have added Shanghai Tower to the list of Strabala's notable buildings as shown by media references in this article. Gensler's lawsuit against the architect does not take away from Stabala's role. The lawsuit only shows that --in the context(s) that their suit is made -- the firm has questions about what he has said and his role. The suit shows that they disagree but in and of itself -- it proves NOTHING. Now, If there suit is successful, and specifically states in its conclusions that the architect did not lead the design, then of course Shanghai Tower can be deleted from the Infobox. But until then, it amounts to "original research" (which is not allowed on Wikipedia) to conclude that Strabala has not led design of the building. Besides that, the reader is already informed twice about the lawsuits on the page, so let's give them some credit for having brains and they can take that information along with the information on the page about the architect to draw their own conclusions. I will be happy to discuss further with anyone and to take this up the chain as needed. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph, you misinterpreted Danger's comments. They ONLY said essentially that you are mistaken in thinking that you are restricted from editing it (your prior request implies that you have such a mis-understanding) and that you made technical/syntax errors in your prior attempted edit of the infobox. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize Mykjoseph. I should not have allowed the fact that I am swiftly losing patience with you affect the tone of my response. North8000 is correct about what my comment was intended to convey. Regarding your follow up comment, if you will please look at the article as it is now, your changes appear in the infobox. If for some reason you can't see them, let us know; it may be a problem with your browser or some sort of bug in the MediaWiki software. Danger (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Danger. I misunderstood the Infobox instructions as they are not very user friendly. Thanks again.Mykjoseph (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

Deleted reference to unproven and coordinated suits by two obviuos competitors of this architect. These suits, brought 4 months ago and of unknown current status, fit in the story, but until proven do not warrant "coloring" this person's 30 year career based on two allegations. Of course, if suits are ultimately proven and won by firms, that is a different story and would be proper. To do udderwise, wold be a little like putting referenece to lawsuit by retailer Tesco in the lead section of a story about a WalMart executive. It makes no sense as a main highlight and summar of a business professional. Like to see other thoughts from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaSpring (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the allegations are widely covered in RSs. True or not is irrelevant and not our call. Novaseminary (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like DonnaSpring's point is not whether suits are true or false, which NovaSeminary assumes it is. It is how relevant is it for these two allegations to be the lead focus of story. NovaSemenary has decided on his own -- without waiting for any other editors' comments -- that it stays as is. Maybe this should be taken up with dispute resolution?Mykjoseph (talk)

Take a look at WP:BRD, but feel free to go to DR, though it seems unnecessary. As I have noted above, the lawsuits are not worthy of inclusion because I think the allegations are true. I have no idea whether the allegations are true. In fact, in some ways, it would be even more noteworthy if both of Strabala's former employers conspired to go after him. (Of course, I likewise have no idea that this is the case, either.) It is the fact of the lawsuits filing that got news coverage (his most significant coverage in RSs this year). And though it is nothing but OR right now, it looks like people can get the status of the lawsuits (or at least the legal documents) at various places online. Novaseminary (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to figure out that when two firms filed lawsuits within one day of each other -- as they did here -- they conspired together. Mykjoseph (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah but that is for another day, Strabala - might have a section about a vexatious lawsuit being dismissed - or he might take the high ground and just clean up the page and say nothing if the cases are tossed. The complaint's look a bit comical for example Gensler claims Mr. Strabala is a "threat to Gensler and the public"

Serioulsy Gensler's 50 item complaint includes the following - item 7 "Gensler is one of the leading global architecture, design, planning, and consulting firms in the world. Gensler employs 2,880 professionals in 38 offices around the world. Gensler serves its global clients in over 80 countries, across six continents" item 16 "On information and belief, Defendant’s architectural business competes with Gensler, and is intended by Defendant to compete with Gensler" item 28 "As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as set forth above, Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured." item 48: "As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as set forth above, Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured" and item 50 "Defendant’s continued portrayal of himself as the designer of certain architectural works designed by Gensler is continuing and will continue, constituting an ongoing threat to Gensler and the public. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined from engaging in the infringing conduct described above, Gensler likely will lose future projects and profits, and continue to suffer irreparable injury to its business reputation and goodwill." Oh BTW shouldn't Novaseminary include all 50 items of Gensler's complaint in the "Lead Sentence" after all they are part of the U.S. Court record not just some RSS feed [sarcasm here]? In all seriousness this is the problem with non certified complaints.

The following Gensler press release http://web.archive.org/web/20060511051956/http://www.gensler.com/news/2006/printable/pr_strabala.html makes it pretty clear Gensler hired Mr. Strabala to get "super tall" business and apparently that is what he did.

J. MARSHALL STRABALA JOINS GENSLER HOUSTON AS DIRECTOR OF DESIGN

HOUSTON, TX, April 7, 2006 — Gensler announced today that J. Marshall Strabala, AIA, LEED AP, has joined the firm as Director of Design for Gensler's South Central Region, which includes offices in Houston and Dallas.

"With an impressive record of design performance, Marshall brings both talent and leadership to our firm," said James E. Furr, FAIA, Gensler's South Central Regional Managing Principal. "Marshall's collaborative approach to project delivery also makes him an excellent fit for Gensler."

Mr. Strabala joins Gensler from Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in Chicago, where he was an Associate Partner and Lead Designer. He brings 25 years of architectural experience to his new role at Gensler. Some of the most notable examples of his work include projects at Canary Wharf in London for Morgan Stanley as well as the award-winning building for Credit Swiss First Boston at 15 The North Colonnade. A noted expert in the design of office buildings, convention centers, and performing arts venues, Strabala spent a year in Asia designing the iconic Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center. Strabala has lectured on architectural design to a wide range of audiences around the world and has completed projects in locations ranging from Mainland China, Korea, Europe, to the Middle East. He was the SOM Associate Partner in Charge of Design for several "supertall" mixed-use projects, including the 5-million-square-foot "The Burj Dubai" in the United Arab Emirates; at well over 160 stories, it will be the world's tallest building upon completion in 2008.

An award-winning architectural designer, Marshall Strabala is recipient of the prestigious Burnham Prize in 1996 and the AIA Chicago Chapter-Grand Projects Award, and he is an Affiliated Fellow of the American Academy in Rome. Numerous books and periodicals have featured his work, including Interiors, Context, Designers West, Metamorphosis, and Space. Mr. Strabala holds a Bachelor of Arts in Design from the University of California at Los Angeles and a Master of Architecture from Harvard University.

Gensler's South Central Region provides a comprehensive scope of architectural, design, planning, and consulting services. Led by Regional Managing Principal James E. Furr, FAIA, the region includes a 175-person office in Houston (David Calkins, AIA, Managing Director) and a 55-person office in Dallas (Judy Pesek, IIDA, Managing Director). Gensler is consistently listed as one of the largest architectural firms in the Houston and Dallas markets. Significant projects in the region include headquarter buildings for Anadarko Petroleum and Reliant Energy in Houston and interiors for Pier 1 and the Fidelity Westlake facility in Dallas.

Contact: Jan Lakin

212-668-4476

jan_lakin@gensler.com

So now Mr. Strabala is a "threat to Gensler and the public" so it seems that according to Gensler Mr. Strabala would damage Gensler if allowed to compete with them - I dont' think Gensler ever did a "super tall" without Marshall Strabala I am pretty sure that is why he was hired and that is what he did with the Shanghai tower. Oddly enough Gensler's own press release says he was the SOM Associate Partner in Charge of Design for several "supertall" mixed-use projects, including the 5-million-square-foot "The Burj Dubai" in the United Arab Emirates but now when he doesn't work for Gensler a 2,880 person company in June of 2006 now make the claim that once Mr. Strabala left it's employ "Gensler has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured." - yet it was okay for him to leave SOM and work for Gensler, shouldn't SOM sue Gensler under the same grounds [sarcasm here]? Once again this is the problem with non certified complaints, perhaps Gensler is just a "sore loser" or perhaps they have a "real claim" but until the Court proceedings pan out no one will know for sure.

DonnaSpring's comment is spot on giving Marshall Strabala's major accomplishments equal in weight to lawsuits by former employers that allege the some violation in the Wikipedia lead off text is absurd.

Both actions are under 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) yet for some reason heresy opinions from the RSS feeds keep getting injected. Look I am all for leaving the RSS references, e.g. links, remember anyone can inspect the RSS links and or the actual case filings if they care to, but the text like "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any, to certain design projects while intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution." and "falsely claiming credit for work that originated with the company, including the designs for three of the 10 tallest buildings in the world." serves no purpose as it is no different than "claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects" -which I might add is the original text by Novaseminary which he kept trying to add to the Leading Sentence - but it belong in the proper section e.g. "Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit".

Novaseminary keeps inserting derogatory into the leading sentence section despite the fact there is still a litigation section present on the Wikipedia page. It doesn't matter if the suit has merit or no merit is true or not true (at this point no one knows) - but we do know they are allegations in a non certified complaint. One might think every major section should be added to the Lead sentence, seriously I think Novaseminary has an axe to grind let a litigation section be both descriptive and speak for itself. Ask your self this should Bill Clinton's biography on Wikipedia Bio page include "Sexual misconduct allegations" which has it's own distinct major section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Novaseminary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP review the first paragraphs. The claim that "Just the allegations are widely covered in RSs. True or not is irrelevant and not our call" by Novaseminary is wacky - there is a later section that describes things in detail just as there is a "Sexual misconduct allegations" for Bill Clinton. I am so tired of "righteous editors" who have an agenda that I will seek to report Novaseminary on this item as a non-partial editor. I believe the court dockets speak for themselves - Strabala has moved to dismiss the cases.

Public sources:

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/76467/m-arthur-gensler-jr-associates-inc-v-jay-marshall-strabala-individually-and-doing-business-as-2define-architecture/summary (not very current 1:11-cv-03945)

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/76456/skidmore-owings-merrill-llp-v-jay-marshall-strabala/summary (very current 1:11-cv-03906-MGC)

Government sources:

The definitive sources are from the U.S. District Courts (more current than the above) http://www.pacer.gov/ that link to https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ for 1:11-cv-03945 and https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/ for 1:11-cv-03906-MGC that are fully up to date.

It is interesting that Strabala doesn't make a public comment to the "RSS" feeds but instead merely quietly responds in court in a quiet legal fashion all without slandering the companies that filed against him. Oddly enough footnot [5] I believe from Ugolik, Kaitlin used the initial filing of an ex employer and a link to a pay site the provides the same information I cited above for 1:11-cv-03906-MGC, however in this citation there no analysis of why the case should be dismissed and what comes after if it isn't. The law is about procedures and paperwork clients that shoot off there mouth and make press releases are somewhat problamatic to defend if anyone wants Stabala's opinions you only have to start looking at his declarations in his dockets example https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12719787815 (DECLARATION of Jay Marshall Strabala in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.) he appears to use pictures for educational purposes is this a crime SOM thinks and I imagine Strabala doesn't think it is a crime. The we look at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12719787799 (MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.) and we see the classic legal doctrine get things dismissed for whatever reason before a complaint is seen to have merit and you move to a summary judgement stage in which all the cards are laid on the table.

An important point for Novaseminary I have to go back to the "Lead Sentence" Wikipedia text in question - it is weird the actions appear from public records to both be filed filed under "15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)" - source RFCEXPRESS and PACER.GOV - and somehow a leap is made in some RSS feeds that Strabala is claiming undue credit - I don't get it. Next both the complaints were "non-certified" this is a key fact because in a certified complaint it means that everything is claimed by Gensler or SOM to be "factual" and "true" and can be the basis of a counter suit, BUT in a non-certified complaint in the U.S. Civil system the filing party can make wild unsubstantiated assertions. Note a non-certified complaints are always slanderous and paint the defendant or taget as unfaltering as possible.

Like Mykjoseph indicated I believe and second the motion that the repeated actions of Novaseminary, by constantly reinserting the text "In June 2011, however, both of his former architectural firm employers sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects.[4][5]" in the Lead Sentance, should be taken up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution after all this is a biography of a living person and subject to those standards as per

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

I don't get the actions of Novaseminary they seem disproportionate based on a few RSS feeds, no one is removing the fact there is a law suit (albeit a non-certified complaint) but the lawsuit has no bearing to the total sum e.g. the meaning and accomplishments of a person and his achievements, I think the term is "innocent until proven guilty", thus it should be put in the lead sentence. The lead sentence should be moved into the later section that already exists and which IMHO is too vague and should be renamed from "Employer Lawsuits" to "Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit" which seems to be the crux of the matter. And the rest of the existing text can be dropped. Furthermore Strabala's response (and also Gensler's and SOM's) are a matter of documented court records.

The entire text of the old "Employeer Lawsuits" should both be true, balanced and concise IMHO it should read something like -

Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit

In June 2011, Gensler and SOM two former architectural firm employers, sued Strabala, via non certified complaints, claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects. Strabala and his attorneys have filed motions to dismiss both claims in the U.S. District Courts of Illinois and New York.

The above is accurate and truthfull and keeps the RSS link references (people can read and get what they want) but also reference the pacer.gov electonic filing systems of the U.S. Courts and the dockets that show both Strabala's response(s) as well as SOM's and Gensler's as they exist to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all remarks from 108.75.223.67 above. NovaSeminary should very careful with editing of this page, which he has obviously not to this point. He is walking on more than just eggshells here in his usual role as the chief editor of this page -- as is Wikipedia.Mykjoseph (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am stupified, and I might add what seems to be an ongoing problem with the editor Novaseminary who finally allows the removal of the inappropriate lead sentence addition (after he tried several times to reinsert it). We all seem to agree the the whole litigation thing belongs in the section "Litigation Concerning Attribution of Credit". Yet despite this concessional work, Novaseminary immediately tries once again to "color' Mr. Strabala with an even less relevant set of facts - this is truly not being an impartial editor.

This is the last time I saw the "In June 2011, however, both of his former architectural firm employers sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects." In the Lead sentence - Revision as of 17:42, 17 October 2011 (edit) Novaseminary (talk | contribs)

Jay Marshall Strabala is an American architect who has been recognized with participating in the design of notable buildings, including as a member of the team that designed the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In June 2011, however, both of his former architectural firm employers sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects.[4][5]

What appears to be the proper concessional lead sentence remains (with the entire litigation "affair" in it's own section, where it belongs, just like Bill Clinton's section on "Sexual misconduct allegations") - Revision as of 17:51, 17 October 2011 (edit) (undo) 108.75.223.67 (talk)

Jay Marshall Strabala is an American architect who has been recognized with participating in the design of notable buildings, including as a member of the team that designed the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The above is all well and goos and the basic essence has been present for several months, yet after the "deletiong" ot the "law suits" form the lead sentence Novaseminary is up to some personnel or paid agenda I cite the following attempted addition of "--while working under Adrian Smith--", apparently if Novaseminary can not "color" Mr. Strabala he will then try to minimize his work in his most notable achievements - Revision as of 21:41, 17 October 2011 (edit) Novaseminary (talk | contribs)

Jay Marshall Strabala is an American architect. He is recognized for his role in designing notable buildings including--while working under Adrian Smith--the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building.

The above change was rejected by Mykjoseph as "(innapproprriate, as NovaSeminary knows this is covered in page. Will email Wikipedia legal immediately if edit repeated)" - I concur with his assessment, and Mykjoseph removed the additon above.

Now here is were Novaseminary shows his true hand or perhaps a paid agenda remember the community just got rid of In June 2011, however, both of his former architectural firm employers sued Strabala claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects." and now he attempts to insert "Strabala also received attention in the late 1990s for his involvement contesting zoning approval for a high-rise development project in Chicago" - this guy, Novaseminary, must have it out for Mr. Strabala or must be some sort of paid "hit man" for SOM and/or Gensler.

Jay Marshall Strabala is an American architect. He is recognized for his role in designing notable buildings including the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building. Strabala also received attention in the late 1990s for his involvement contesting zoning approval for a high-rise development project in Chicago.

Once again the preceding change was rejected by Mykjoseph as "NovaSeminary -- That is fluff that doesn't belong in lead from 13+ years ago. Rerread the section on Lead Sentences. You are LOSING YOUR MIND, it appears." - I concur with his assessment, and Mykjoseph removed the additon above. IMHO I don't have a clue about what all this "contesting zoning approval" is =- but I looked on the page and under "Local Involvement" there is a 67 word discussion on this issue which seems to be a minor footnote in Mr. Strabala's life. I not sure this "Local Involvement" should even exist it might be interesting to the public if a designer of "super talls" was a NIMBY (not in my back yard) - hey I'd like to read that so maybe someone should quote his testimony - could be a neat contrast. Back to the issue at hand a burning question for Novaseminary - what the world does this have to do with the Man's work and why would you move it up to the Lead Sentence - why don't you move every derogatory thing you can find in the current Wikipedia page and make a 500 word lead sentence ? Yet to be "balanced" then you have to move every positive thing too now we are at a 1000 words and we don't have a lead sentence.

So now at least until Novaseminary gets his nerve up once again to defame Mr. Strabala once again the current page reads as follows - as of Latest revision as of 23:38, 17 October 2011

Jay Marshall Strabala is an American architect. He is recognized for his role in designing notable buildings including the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building.

Up until the nonsense of attempting to repeatable change the Lead Sentence I was giving him the benefit as a dedicated editor that made mistakes (I have only looked at this stuff doe about 3 days). Know I truly wonder where Novaseminary came from, I certanly hope he has been doing a better job on other Wikipedia posts if in fact he moderates them. I did come across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nintizeus with the following:

RVV Novaseminary redirects are seen as vandalism.

Dear Novaseminary, while you may be seeking to edit this article in a genuine manner, please do not continue to impose a false redirect, as it does present as a vandalised effort to this article, and will be reported. The articles on technacy and technological genre are long established serious terms validated in Australian History, and respected academic research, and should not be redirected and obscured under an alternate theme that causes users of this very precise term, great concern. Discuss your views in the TALK page.

Full disclosure - I am IP address 108.75.223.67 my name is Jon Strabala - yes I am related to Marshall Strabala, yet I looking for an accurate Wikipage that is correct and has a bit of balance. When I look at the above casts some deep suspicions into Novaseminary, can someone explain to me what the above means? Is Novaseminary some sort of Vandal, does he use multiple accounts, is he a sock puppet ? I challenge Novaseminary to identify himself and any ties he have to Gensler and/or SOM or any party that "hates" Mr. Strabala. Why because for the life of me I can not figure this guy out and his actions are completely irrational. I feel very sorry for Mykjoseph who seems to have put up with Novaseminary lunacy for months.

{{admin help}}

I am going to be blunt and prove my point about Novaseminary bias - he seems to be engaging in an edit war. He claimed that "It is the fact of the lawsuits filing that got news coverage (his most significant coverage in RSs this year" refer to top of this discussion. This is why he added something to the Lead Sentence which by consensous was removed (e.g. the lawsuits have their own section). Okay so I if I buy that is Novaseminary's reasoning I can not explain for any reason his same day alteration of adding "--while working under Adrian Smith--" into the lead sentence - is this now the most significant coverage in RSS's this year eclipsing the lawsuits (which were deprecated to the proper section)? [I SAY NO after many searches] In the same vein is the subsequent addition (second attempt later that day) to add to the Lead Sentance by Novaseminary the additional text of "Strabala also received attention in the late 1990s for his involvement contesting zoning approval for a high-rise development project in Chicago" now the most significant coverage in RSS's this year (minutes earlier it was working Adrian Smith). [I also SAY NO after many searches] Apparently this 'testimony' by Strabala was 13 years ago and a trivial fact (positive or negative I have no idea), there is no way it could re-emerge as important, but it is obvious that Novaseminary is misleading all involved about his true reasons for doing things since he has the consistency of an amorphous substance at its triple point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point. There is something seriously wrong here! I have requested admin help at this point on my behalf and also Mykjoseph behalf, I would appreciate input into the proper escalation and escalation procedures(if admin help is the wrong venue) of what appears to be a repeat series of offenses by [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary] 108.75.223.67 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER

In response to your request for admin help, I have looked at the relevant editing history, both on this talk page and its associated article and elsewhere. Novaseminary has explained his/her reasoning, has asked for help, has been civil, and has tried to discuss the relevant issues. Meanwhile you have been rather intemperate, and have made personal attacks (e.g. accusing Novaseminary of "lunacy"). You said that you would "be blunt and prove [your] point", but you have proved nothing: you have simply asserted your opinion. Both you and Mykjoseph clearly have a considerable conflict of interest, and are concerned with editing the article for public relations purposes. I have considered the possibility of blocking your IP address as a meat puppet of Mykjoseph. You accuse Novaseminary of edit warring, but there are always two sides in an edit war, and you seem to have been engaging in an edit war yourself. If you are not happy with this response to your request for an administrator's help then you may take the case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but if you wish to consider such action I strongly urge you to first read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Novaseminary has explained his reasoning, but in the same day he doesn't even come close to following said resoning. 2) I am intemperate granted I called this lunacy perhaps I should have said "logically the explanation given for A should also apply to B and C" 3) I did indeed make a point a Lead Sentence addition that colored a biography of a living person was removed (Novaseminary gave reason why it was there in the first place "it appears in a lot of recent RSS feeds") then within hours of the removal trivial and/or ancient matters were promoted and added by Novaseminary back into the the Leading Sentence. Yet under his own prior explanation I can not logically understand why he would do this. I guess it is too much to expect an admin to follow a common thread across hundreds of edits -I thoudht that I was very clear right above my admin help request, starting with "I am stupified", on what my issue was. 4) Agree'd I do have a conflict of interest (do not know about Mykjoseph) I am tying my best to be impartial - I read a Wiki page on a relative and felt that there was an attempt to "color" something with bias - so I took it upon myself to perform some edits and fully explain them as long as I abide by the rules and norms of Wikipedia I believe have the same rights as others 5) As to thinking I am a meat puppet of Mykjoseph, from reading the link no I was not recruited, but yes I am a relative, it does sound like you also are a bit intemperate but thank you for not blocking my IP address. I agree that if I update and/or post something not factual or not nuetral that it should definitely be adjusted or removed by the community - all I ask is the same for Novaseminary. 6) As to whether I am happy or not (concerning admin help) it appears you think I am not as your advise was to read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot 7) what remains unanswered was an admin request appropriate in the first place or is there a better venue in explaing this you seem not to have been very helpful.

I would still like to find out how to reassign this to someone other than Novaseminary (it appears he is the editor in fact), hey if I have problems with a different editor than by all means I would be or have been the unreasonable one (and immediately ban my IP if I raise a fuss), however IMHO I am guessing that any random editor assigned in place of Novaseminary would cool this entire page down to a normal Wikipedia page edit/update cycle. If I am wrong concerning a new editor then I am of course over the past couple of days have been the "pigheaded" person and shouldn't be given the time of day. Now I admit I don't fully understand Wikipedia but why would Novaseminary become some sort of "gatekeeper" of this page and at the same time a "proactive judge" on new content that should be added. my opinion - I would be much more comfortable if the "gatekeeper" who judges the majority of new content didn't himself attempt to put in so much new content, but more importantly followed his own reasoning. In a perfect world I guess a "gatekeeper" should be concerned with deletions of biased and inappropriate content with a minor focus on corrections. So my question remains why couldn't anyone else "replace him" on this topic if others like me seem to find bias and how does one go about it. Now I might be wrong but issues only seem to arise between Novaseminary and others at least that is what I found when I went back in time and reviewed the history of this page. Maybe I am wrong and Novaseminary is not the editor in fact and is just a another user, but I am somewhat perplexed that he watches this page like a hawk as shown by numerous immediate deletes and re-edits (is this normal). 108.75.223.67 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER

Anyone can edit here if they would like to. There are no assignments here. That he has the page on a watchlist is completely normal (several editors do this for hundreds or thousands of articles). He can't be replaced. Can I replace you?

If I'm interpreting JamesBWatson correctly, he's saying that he's not seeing that Novaseminary has done anything wrong or that you have proven that he has done anything wrong. On the contrary, you're walking a fine line. He suggested that if you weren't happy with that assessment, you were welcome to go to the administrator's noticeboard to ask for help but that you may incur more action against you than against him (James, please correct me if I'm wrong).

From what I've seen, Nova has rolled with the incivility and tried to work with you and Myk including the addition of some compromises. From what I've seen, you want him gone because he disagrees with you. In what way is that fair? You disagree with him. Is it fair to ask that you leave? At least he's been civil about the situation, from what I've seen.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is if you connection is clouding your judgement regarding bias/neutrality/whatever. JamesBWatson has stated that he thinks you have a considerable conflict of interest (meaning that you have a close connection and your aims conflict with the aims of Wikipedia). I would have to agree with him. Do you have any response to that? If we're wrong, how? OlYeller^Talktome 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me first apologize for the length of this "post" perhaps there is a better place, but I am not quite sure where.

Thanks OlYeller21 the clarifications you have given are indeed helpful. WRT "Do you have any response to that" I disagree that simply because an individual has "a close connection" makes their their "aims conflict with the aims of Wikipedia" - I understand and admit the potential conflict. JamesBWatson is entitled to his opinion conflict of interest and he may be proven right in the future. Is his view this way because I have been "indelicate" in my postings, probably. As to your questions "If we're wrong, how". I will try to clarify: I asked for an admin review about a specific series of edits by Novaseminary and Mykjoseph (modifies/adds/deletes) that I didn't even make and then I become the subject to both a conflict of interest flag and a comment "I have considered the possibility of blocking your IP address" by JamesBWatson. In JamesBWatson's support yes I am biased in the sense I saw a series of posts that didn't seem to pass the orange juice test so I tried to document the specific issue a bit and then ask for admin help albeit in an intemperate manner (something I will avoid wholeheartedly in the future).

So if someone (not me) edits the Lead Sentence in this article again by adding a comment like "Marshal Strabala failed to pay parking tickets in the early eighties" and someone removes it (again not me) and it gets put back in etc. etc.. I then see this as an edit war and I notify an admin - I get a reprimand that I may be blocked is this because a) I am a self admitted conflict of interest party or b) I made other updates to a different area of the page in question or c) I am a meat puppet because I happen to agree with one of the parties (or all of the previous or something else). I was originally quite curious if Novaseminary and Mykjoseph got the same warning I received at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.75.223.67&redirect=no or was I somehow a special case because I noticed a edit war and reported it (even though I didn't add/delete or modify) or was I special because I seemed to support Mykjoseph (digging deeper it seems the later would be true).

I just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novaseminary&redirect=no it was blank. Now looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mykjoseph&redirect=no it seems he was just blocked past or current legal threats. Even more interesting (at least to me) is a discussion of my IP address from his page via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Marshall_Strabala and it sets a completely different tone taking about similarity of posts .

From the above I see OlYeller21 says "I alerted an admin and then the IP did", yes the IP is me. Well I admit I don't know what is going on (OlYeller21 wonders if I do also), but I do know Novaseminary has recently stated that "In the next day or so, I am hoping to cleanup some of what the IP and Mykjospeh did, including some things that could leave a misimpression in readers' minds" I guess I have to ask him what misimpression hopefully he will be willing to have a dialog. Despite the fact in the Noticeboard#Marshall_Strabala Novaseminary has "discussed similarity between what the IP (me) has written and what Mykjoseph" and called me and asked the question "Are eds ever blocked for meatpuppeting" (I think he was referring to me)

If I was cool an collected, not supported a specific editor over another and was completely non-inflammatory in all posts would either of the admins JamesBWatson or OlYeller21 responded differently - remember I made no edits in the specific instance - I am very very curious.

Or is the real problem that I sound too much like Mykjoseph, trust me looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Marshall_Strabala I seem to have gotten a lot of attention in just two days and this seems to be the opinion of some.

So at this point I remain an interested party, albeit a self admitted conflict of interest party, I imagine from this "admin" dialog and other pages I just uncovered - that can still somehow watch list this article (like others are doing) and provide insightful contributions and possible corrections. I guess as long as I properly substantiate and document and reference all my changes, or better yet ask questions on this discussion page to reach agreement first, then I am behaving in an appropriate manner in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. Furhter more I need to be much more careful than the average Joe since I can be seen as always be seen as biased by my heritage conflict of interest. I look forward to giving proper encyclopedic input.

In closing I would be perfectly willing to look and comment on any proposed cleanup. So in the spirit of Wikipedia Novaseminary feel fee to post how you would want me to do this my posting on my Talk page or another appropriate page if it isn't this (think of me as a complete novice and guide me). I fully agree with the comment "There's way too much quacking coming from that [this] Talk page" - so Novaseminary lets work together in the next few days WRT to my edits as I really don't wish to look at this page again for a few months - I even publicly apologize right now to you for going off the handle a bit of the admin issue. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER

You're absolutely, totally, 100% correct that having a close connection doesn't make you incapable of being neutral. I find that incredibly important as do many other editors and do my best to remember that with every close connection/COI case that I handle. As for the possibility of your connection causing a problem, I haven't seen glaring issues but I have seen a lot of care going into things that seem trivial to me, an uninvoled editor. Pairing that with you calling for an admin for you and Myk makes me think that you two share, in the very least, a line of communication if not opinion and as you may or may not be aware, he has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia because of legal threats that he made.

The oddness of the discussion at COIN is, to me, is an example of what makes WP great. Nove, sensing a problem, came and notified a noticeboard full of editors ready to deal with situations just like this. At that point, uninvolved editors who frankly don't care who thinks they're right, start to assess the situation. At that point, they can start taking actions in line with what they think is best for WP. Their distance makes their discussions seem odd or even creepy to people involved in the reported situation but ultimately, that's what WP neutral (as it can be).

To me, that's all water under the bridge. I think you understand or at the very least are starting to understand the concerns that other editors have. I'd like to emphasize that these are concerns and not something that, at least I, feel warrant drastic action (a block or topic ban) at this point. I appreciate and thank you for seeing others' point of view. That's hard for a whole lot of people to do. I also appreciate you being upfront about your identity. It makes things much easier for everyone involved.

As for the article, maybe we can start with you concerns and I can try to help facilitate a conversation. If you make a brief list of problem areas with a short sentence or two describing your concern, we can start addressing each issue, one by one.

I think it's important for me to note that in situations like this, there's often a divide between what editors think is true and what is verifiable. As an encyclopedia, we're not really here to tell the truth (although I hope that it comes out). We're here to present information that's verifiable in reliable sources. If you know or believe something to be true because of your connection, it's still important that we be able to verify the information rather than remove or add the information because of what you personally know. I'm not saying that this has been a problem here but I see it often.

For now, let's leave the article as it is and start as speedy and effective conversation as possible. I'll start a new section now if that's OK with everyone. OlYeller^Talktome 03:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward and improving the article

Let's talk about issues here. Using an asterisk in the coding produces a bullet and a # produces a number in a list in case anyone didn't know. I tried to organize this to make things as easy as possible. OlYeller^Talktome 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start

Okay, with this edit I made a few changes.

• Lead: IP's point that the reference to "both" of his former employers suing him implied "all" of his former employers was well taken. I tried to work in neutral language in the lead to more fully explain the role he played in designing building and the controversy that exists (rightly or wrongly) regarding this. The lead should summarize the high points of the rest of the article. That he has received coverage for his roles related to important buildings is the type of thing that should go in the lead. But since the exact role he has played is being questioned by the two architectural firms with which he is most associated (until starting his own firm) deserves mention to prevent the attribution to go without question. Focusing too much on the litigation could lead to unfairly knocking down his accomplishments, but listing his purported accomplishments without any qualification, full well-knowing that the employers he worked for at the time now dispute the extent of his role would just as surely ignore the state of things as reported in RSs. I tried to keep things balanced and not take sides on the dispute either way. (WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD)

• Litigation section: I took out the reference to "non certified complaints". That is pretty clearly original research and may be a WP:JARGON problem. Maybe it belongs, but we need to know why that matters, preferably from secondary sources. As it is, I have no idea, other than I recognize based on IPs comments above that it is a point of contention. The mention of dismissal motions is also original research or close, but since it is verifiable without any interpretation required and clearly relevant, I am fine with it.

• Local involvement section: I took out reference to dozens of witnesses. The source doesn't say this (unless I missed it). It might be true, but fails WP:V, and I don't think it really matters much anyway. I left the rest of IP's changes because the source notes Strabala was testifying on his own behalf and that of the community group. I think the section could have a better heading since "concerning attribution of credit" seems to be some jargon, or at least not as clear as could be. (WP:JARGON) But it is not a big concern. I do think this section is worthwhile. This was covered in the Chicago Tribune. And though he was not speaking for his then-firm (a fact important enough for the paper to mention), an architect coming out against the project did seem to hold more weight with the reporter than it might have otherwise.

• Misc.: I reinserted an apostrophe indicating one quote was actually a quite within a quote. Mykjoseph had removed one of them saying it was unnecessary. I guess it could go either way, but not there need to be zero or two, not one. I also deleted Strabala's date of birth from the person data at the bottom. It is not sourced to an RSs.

• Further question: A few buildings are listed as his "notable works" in the infobox at the top. I wonder if this leaves people with the impression that Strabala was the architect of these buildings. But since each is discussed and placed into context in the text, this is not a huge concern.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Lead

Okay if RSs test truly support the need for this in WP:LEAD I am game (Please note I never thought the later Litigation section should be removed - thus in my mind the Litigation was always covered but I do see your point due to the lawsuit specifically SOM here to "prevent the attribution to go without question"). But I feel that somehow the older text (I think it yours don't know) in WP:LEAD from [1] seemed to be much more clear and concise.

Perhaps one of the two alternatatives in the [[WP:LEAD] would work better (RSs citations omitted below).

However in June 2011, two former architectural firm employers of Strabala sued claiming he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects.

However in June 2011, two former architectural firm employers of Strabala sued claiming he had "misrepresented" the extent of role he played in various projects.

I think either of the above text items read a bit better and more importantly they are more accurate as my proposed text avoids the issue of what exactly does "called into question the extent of Straballa's experience" mean. A reader might be confused "is he basically inexperienced in design", "is he fresh out of college" or is it "his experience as it relates to being able to take credit as a lead designer on a particular project". Nova I believe if it is important to have something like the "experience" fragment it might be better served by the second proposal above.

Next you would know better than me Nova should the references (e.g. links) at the end of [[WP:LEAD] be duplicates of what is in "Litigation concerning attribution of credit" section. It or should it link down to the actual section heading? You know better I am just asking what it the Litigation section had 20 References would you put all 20 References in the WP:LEAD (like [3][4] now show up at the end of the WP:LEAD)?

FYI as I wrote this edit I just noticed someone, DonnaSpring, just edited the page (honestly I don't personnaly want to make a commit on the article without working with all interested parties). I do wish Nova's "cleanup" was first posted her in the Talk and reviewed in this discussion prior to a final post (I don't know if that is difficult do as I myself don't format things too well in Talk) - but I will continue to look at Nova's last version [2] to continue my comments later. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

I like either proposal above. But I am also fine with how ”DonnaSpring” edited the sentence, which has the same effect, I think. So I'll just leave it for now. As for cites in the lead, they are unnecessary as a general rule if the facts the lead is summarizing are cited in the body. But WP:LEADCITE says contentious material in BLPs should be cited in the lead regardless. I could go either way. The fact of the lawsuits is indisputable and not contentious. But the substance of the lawsuits is highly contentious. DonnaSpring removed the cites. I will leave it that way, but I would not object either way. Novaseminary (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Donna's change. I admit that only reverting her and not Nova or anyone else for that matter may not seem fair and may not be. My goal was to get a new editor into the discussion. I'm not clear on what the change represents but removing a ref seemed contentious to me. If you guys agree that the edit was warranted, please feel free to revert my revert.

I am happy to wait a a day or two to see if Donna, Nova or another editor will propose something better, I don't see why a mention of a motion dismiss needs be in the WP:LEAD or mentioned more than once, and I am of the opinion WP:LEAD should be simple and clean the less the better. Nov I also agree with you that the "substance of the lawsuits is highly contentious", but I defer to you and others on whether the cites should stay or be removed in the WP:LEAD. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

RE: Litigation section

My comments here in reality only deals with possibly improving the RSs. First I have no problem with removing "non certified complaints" interested parities can read the actual complaints if they care to. There is a suit it is active and the outcome will what it is (it may or may not be the truth but it will be a conclusion all the same) as the legal system's true purpose strangely enough is to end litigation. If there was a RSs on "non certified complaints" v. "certified complaints" I might ask to leave it in but I didn't find anything. IMHO the current text is clear and short. (RSs citations omitted below)

Strabala and his attorneys have filed motions to dismiss both lawsuits.

Note, as someone with a conflict of interest Marshall Strabala doesn't seem issue press releases on the subject of the lawsuits, nor does he have a news section on his web site with same, or maybe his lawyers says be quite and let the litigation run its course. The point is the U.S. court dockets say he is fighting the allegations (motions to dismiss), granted it might be via a legal maneuver like incorrect venue at this point but that is how the "law" game is played. So from my COI standpoint this merely provides some balance to the RSs [3] which seems to be a paid Gensler press release that also says "No one at 2define could be reached for comment Thursday afternoon" so the fact that Strabala is doing "something", which apparently is litigating has a bit of balance to the use of a "press release". I am aware that my sense of balance might be meaninglessness due to my [WP:COI].

I have a question about RSs the text in the Litigation section e.g. "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any, to certain design projects while intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution" is copied directly from the filed Gensler complaint for case 1:11-cv-03945 in the Northern District of Illinois e.g. RSs [4] links to the WLS radio site page [5] with the verbatim referenced text. But is the complaint or the lawsuit's actual docket (a docket is a listing of items filed with the court) a better source than what appears to be a Gensler press release - just a question?. Note, I am not saying remove the RS [6] it is just that the equivalent SOM RS seems to be bit more reliable and unbiased - maybe 1) the current Gensler RS needs an addition of a second RS like the current SOM LAW360 reference and 2) I think docket references to the motions could be improved. In this light Nov could you take the time to click on the following links and give me feed back.

Gensler specific "Litigation Section" RSs [7] and alternates:

Current RS [8]

I see another LAW360 [9] is a pay site (free for seven days) but eventually will get all data its data from PACER/ECF pacer.gov that links to a public access pay site [[10]] for case 1:11-cv-03945 in the Northern District of Illinois.

I see another RFCEXPRESS [11] is a non pay site (more accessible to the public at large no payments no logins) which also eventually will get all data its data from PACER/ECF pacer.gov that links to a public access pay site [[12]] for case 1:11-cv-03945 in the Northern District of Illinois.

I notice that the Reference [13] accesses PACER/ECF has a simple URL [14] in which the user has to select a URL and do a query sort of a pain - maybe the following would be a better URL [15] this later once a user logs in goes directly to the case 1:11-cv-03945 in the Northern District of Illinois. But unfortunately this is still needs a login and a pay account. What a user would see after a login would be this image [16] basically he/she lands on the desired case after a successful login. As you can see I think the link to this docket and or case files could be improved.

SOM specific "Litigation Section" RSs [17] and alternates:

Current RS from LAW360 [18] - here This is from LAW360 but has some commentary in which Kaitlin Ugolik extracted the text "falsely claiming credit for work that originated with the company, including the designs for three of the 10 tallest buildings in the world" directly from the filed SOM complaint for case 1:11-cv-03906-MGC in the Southern District of New York.

I see another RFCEXPRESS [19] is a non pay site (more accessible to the public at large no payments no logins) which also eventually will get all data its data from PACER/ECF pacer.gov that links to a public access pay site [[20]] for case 1:11-cv-03906-MGC in the Southern District of New York.

I notice that the Reference [21] accesses PACER/ECF has a simple URL [22] in which the user has to select a URL and do a query sort of a pain - maybe the following would be a better URL [23] this later once a user logs in goes directly to the case 1:11-cv-03906-MGC in the Southern District of Newy York. But unfortunately this is still needs a login and a pay account. What a user would see after a login would be this image [24] basically he/she lands on the desired case after a successful login. As you can see I think the link to this docket and or case files could be improved.

Note the "free" dockets typically only say the cause is "15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)" which to a casual reader doesn't mean much nor give the real reasons thus there is a need for either the current RSs or something highly similar. It should be noted accessing or downloading the up to date current dockets or complaints costs money, I couldn't find a free public version of the current docket listing or the complaint for Gensler's 1:11-cv-03945. However the SOM 1:11-cv-03906-MGC the docket is fairly current at RFCEXPRESS [25] and the complaint is indeed public as the URL [26] gives the actual PDF of the complaint [27]. FYI there is no need to for RSs to the actual complaints as the "non certified" text from this article is now gone but the docket lists still need to be referenced.

Obviously Readers want free direct links that just work and do not require payments or logins, in this light given the numerous options of documenting the RSs, Nov what is best for Wikipedia for this section. It appears a lot of links can give almost everything for free but is that the right approach or a single "locked link" better ? 108.75.223.67 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Here is the latest edit I made. Here is why I did what I did:

Lead - I agreed with Jon's suggestions above. I went with the first suggestion with minor alterations. The most significant difference is that I changed "claimed" to "alleged" to make more clear they are just allegations. This also does most of what I took to be the point of DonnaSpring's last edit. I did not remvoe the citations as DonnaSpring had done, though. I think WP:LEADCITE might apply, and I don't think the cites hurt anything. Like I mentioned above, though, I don't have much of a preference on whether to include the cites in the lead.

Litigation - I agree with Jon that the motion to dismiss language is fine, so I left it as it was. I also agree that cites to the court filings would be good to add to the initial discussion of the litigations, so I added them (to the RFC Express website since I couldn't find anything better). I also added a pointer to these pages in the "motions to dismiss" sentence. As for the Gensler RSs on WLS-AM, I don't think this is a press release. It comes from the Sun-Times wire which is a news wire, not a press release service. The article also quotes from Strabala's firm's website so the article does seem as balanced as can be covering the filing of a lawsuit. I also added a pointer to the Architecture magazine website covering the suit (it was already cited above). The posting seems based on the WLS-AM story (which the magazine links to) but seems pretty balanced, if short. I also added to the Gensler suit text the fact that Gensler sued after Strabala started his own firm, per the source.

I can't figure how to link directly to a particular document on PACER, so I left that. But with the link to the listing of court documents, at least people can get a sense of things for free. Because it is generaly ok to cite to primary sources, especially if it is also supported by secondary sources (WP:V), I wonder if anyone would upload the court documents (or the important ones) to Wikisource and then we could cite to them there. If that is allowed (I know nothing about Wikisource), it might be the best of all worlds.

Novaseminary (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead - As long as the actions are active and ongoing some sort of citations should remain. I imagine down the road (months, years) when the cases conclude and run there course either the Lead will change to be correct without citations and the rsults of the actions will be updated in the Litigation section. Looks good Nov.

Litigation - Either newer documents just came on line when Nova looked at RFC EXPRESS or I missed it (as the docket listing doesn't match the "summary" tab), it pays always to have two sets or more of eyes. I lean slightly towards landing on "Lawsuit Summary" tabs of RFCEXPRESS rather than the "Court Documents" tabs. However since the Gensler "Lawsuit Summary" is out of date WRT "Court Documents" what Nov did looks better and of course any one can click on "Lawsuit Summary" once they hit the page. Looks good Nov and much thanks for following and working with my proposed link set. I will make one minor change to the (PACER) portion of the text in footnote 18 (PACER) this makes it an active hotlink just like footnote 17.

108.75.223.67 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Litigation update

Litigation Revisting this with a major ruling (On Feb. 21, 2012) e.g. the Gensler case was dismissed. I have three (A, B or C) proposed replacements for the 'Litigation' section below but would like to allow for feedback before making one public. I also qouted form the ruling order/memorandum that Judge used especially the "Facts" in his opinion to dismiss all qoutes are of course in double quotes. The Gensler case was dismissed acording to a Rule 12(b)(6) - in legalize form wikipedia itself [28] this means "The Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which replaced the common law demurrer, is how lawsuits with insufficient legal theories underlying their cause of action are dismissed from court." IMHO this lawsuit was an attempt to squash a smaller competitor via protracted legal attacks to waste time and money of the defendant, I can even provide citations to this opinion but that isn't the point here. Also I noticed that the existing referents e.g. current referenced #4 to http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2209350&spid= is a Gensler "press release" that is referred to by current reference #11 so at the very least reference #11 http://www.architectmagazine.com/architect-newswire/gensler-vs--strabala.aspx should be removed. Taking this one step further we can cite the "Facts" as laid out by the Judge when he wrote his "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" docket #47 e.g.

Facts

From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e.,

an architect. (Compl. ¶ 9.) While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in

the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet

Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters

(Id. ¶¶ 10-14.)

Upon leaving the employ of Gensler, Strabala began doing business as an architect under

the business name 2DEFINE Architecture, with offices in Chicago, Illinois, Shanghai, China and

Seoul, South Korea. (Id. ¶ 15.) Strabala promotes his architecture business through a personal

website, www.define-arch.com, and a Flickr website. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20.) On the personal website,

Strabala claims to have designed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; the Nanjing

Greenland Financial Center in Nanjing, China; and the Shanghai Tower in Shanghai, China. (Id.

¶ 21.) On the Flickr website, Strabala professes to have designed architectural works such as the

Houston Ballet Center for Dance, Three Eldridge Place, Hess Tower, and the headquarters of the

Tesoro Corporation. (Id. ¶ 22.) Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that

he is the origin of design of said architectural works. (Id. ¶ 50.)

Specifically the FACT or reason for the suit "Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works" - this obviously trumps a self serving gensler press release as it is the published opinion of a Judge. Additionally the FACTS show that "Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director" and "trabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters". Thus I am leaning towards update C below.

Litigation section

<------------------------- beg proposed changes A B or C ... sorry I do not know how to indent ------------------------->

Litigation concerning attribution of credit (update possibility A)

In June 2011, Gensler unsuccessfully sued Strabala alleging he "misrepresented the nature of his contribution", where the Court granted Strabala’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss finding that there was no “false advertising” and that Strabala, as Gensler's Design Director, "worked on and participated in the design of several buildings including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."

In June of 2011, SOM also sued Strabala alleging that he was "falsely claiming credit for work that originated with the company, including the designs for three of the 10 tallest buildings in the world." Strabala's attorneys have also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this similar lawsuit..

Litigation concerning attribution of credit (update possibility B)

In June 2011, Gensler unsuccessfully sued Strabala alleging "Gensler, not (Strabala), was the source of the architectural and design services for several projects", where the Court granted Strabala’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss finding that there was no “false advertising” and that Strabala, as Gensler's Design Director, "worked on and participated in the design of several buildings including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."

In June of 2011, SOM also sued Strabala alleging that he was "falsely claiming credit for work that originated with the company, including the designs for three of the 10 tallest buildings in the world." Strabala's attorneys have also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this similar lawsuit..

Litigation concerning attribution of credit (update possibility C)

In June 2011, Gensler unsuccessfully sued Strabala "to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works", where the Court granted Strabala’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss finding that there was no “false advertising” and that Strabala, as Gensler's Design Director, "worked on and participated in the design of several buildings including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."

In June of 2011, SOM also sued Strabala alleging that he was "falsely claiming credit for work that originated with the company, including the designs for three of the 10 tallest buildings in the world." Strabala's attorneys have also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this similar lawsuit..

<------------------------- end proposed changes A B or C ... sorry I do not know how to indent ------------------------->

Lead

Okay assume that update C (above) is made. Question #1 should I also include the current reference 4 even though it is a press release? Question #2 now this then brings up the issue of updating the LEAD we have one "dismissed suit" on a Rule 12(b)(6) which didn't have leagal legs, and we have another SOM suit filed one day after Genselers which is very similar (and it can be cited that collusion between Gensler and SOM was involved). Is this (the below sentence) actually an important thing about Marshall Strabala does the public care to know this (obviously the 'Litigation' section shall remain as it is noteworthy). I would propose that the entire citation in the LEAD be removed starting with "However ..." e.g.

However, in June 2011, two of Strabala's former architectural firm employers sued him alleging that he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects.[4][5]

at the very least reference [4] would have to be updated to the actual case or the sub 'Litigation' sub-section. I really do not wan to add something like "One case has been dismissed without merit". I woudln't even want to add the following (assuming both cases where dismissed).

In June 2011, two of Strabala's former architectural firm employers unsuccessfully sued him alleging that he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects with all claims being dismissed.

Any ideas here on the LEAD - like I said maybe its best 1) to remove the text starting from "However ..." or just update all the references to "However ..." in the LEAD to one that just points to the 'Litigation' section and wait a month or two to see the SOM case clear the docket.

I look forward to receiving some edits/comments on the above. However if this "talk" page remins quite I will post update C, and remove the "However ..." section for the reasons described above. 108.75.223.125 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• Please hold off on any changes for now. Has this ruling been covered in any news source? Is the decision available anywhere? And reference 4 in the current version is not a press release, it is a news story from the Chicago Sun-Times Media Wire (note the sentence at the end noting ”No one at 2define could be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.”). I would focus on how best to add mention of this new development rather than removing anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nova, looking real deep into the Chicago Sun-Times Media Wire press release question - odd if I go to the site http://www.suntimes.com I can not even find this article in the archives (not that that is conclusive). Now lets look at the title "Architect making false claims, former employer says" and note also there exists a company logo for Gensler which IMHO would be quite "odd" for an independent article to use. There also is no author for the Chicago Sun-Times Media Wire only a copy right comment at the bottom "© Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago Sun-Times 2011. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed". Okay if I search for non related articles like http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/sports/10768813-419/north-looking-to-wrap-up-share-of-dvc-title-tonight.html I see that there is no logo as I would expect and there is also an author for attribution. Other articles I found do not have an "author" so I guess it depends on who publishes the feed. But I have yet to find a company "logo" embedded in another news release. Note, I have contacted Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago for clarification on this article and will update when I find out more it just seems odd to me. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• • It turns out that the ruling is available for free online. With this series of edits, I tried to incorporate the current state of things and referenced the ruling. Novaseminary (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nova, next I was indeed holding off to have a dialog, I assumed you would do the same - surprised you made an update. IMHO was willing to wait the 15 days (now 13) since updates that constantly change are confusing and unwarranted, also I started this thread specifically to address people posting blindly or prematurely - as you well know we had a lot of issue son this article in the past. I started a dialog in good faith such that all interested parties could work out the text. I find your premature updates use a lot of legalize - look I understand it e.g. Lanham Act and also 12(b)(6) etc. etc., but I would challenge you Nova (or any casual reader) to tell me what the Lanham Act is (yes I see you put a reference in) but you utterly failed to see the importance of a 12(b)(6) dismissal even though I explained it in great detail. So you take out my proposed wiki reference on the type of dismissal and introduce something even more confusing i.e. the Lanham Act which is basically it is about passing off goods as your own which boils down to false advertising. Whith this in mind the FACTS as recited by Judge Guzman are the most pertinent thing anyone has to go on

A) "Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director"

B) "While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."

C) "Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works."

this is what gnserls lawsuit was all about (from the eyes of Judge Ronald A. Guzman) in laymans terms it can not be more clear - this trumps the Chicago Sun-Times Media Wire article. Next copyright claims were not made in the original complaint nor can be made by Gensler as "works for hire" are owned by the owner of the building - that is settled law ( I guess they can try but don't hold your breath ) - this is another reason to wait before updating the page if Gensler doesn't file within the fifteen day window then text like you added "The judge gave Gensler fifteen days to file a new complaint" is total fluff. Under your weighing of importance one might add the text 14 days form now if Gensler doesn't re-file like "Gensler claim was not plausible on its face nor could it amend it under Copyright law after it was dismissed" - see discussion about what 12(b)(6) is in the "Discussion" section of the opinion and you will find "not plausible on its face". Now lets look at the ruling .... it boils down like this and I am being very honest here.

Discussion

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual

allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Hecker v.

Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009). .[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations. but must contain .enough facts to

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007).

-------------- (striping case law and fluff )

Accordingly, the Court grants defendant.s motion to dismiss the false

designation of origin claim under [Section] 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act.

-------------- (striping case law and fluff )

Gensler also raises a claim for false advertising under [Section] 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.

-------------- (striping case law and fluff )

Under the analysis discussed above, the

Court grants Strabala.s motion to dismiss Gensler.s false advertising claims

-------------- (striping case law and fluff )

Gensler correctly concedes that its claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act rise and fall

with its Lanham Act claims.

-------------- (striping case law and fluff )

Because the

Court has dismissed plaintiff.s Lanham Act claims, the Court dismisses these state law claims as

well.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants defendant.s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss [doc. no. 16]. Plaintiff shall amend the complaint within fifteen days. If plaintiff fails

to do so, the Court will dismiss this suit with prejudice with the understanding that plaintiff no

longer wishes to pursue this litigation.

So from the above you see that there was one key item "[Gensler's] claim for relief that is plausible on its face" (remember in the old archived threads I pointed out that the complaint by Gensler was non-certified e.g. they could claim anything) and three (3) rulings dismisisng various claims "false designation of origin", "false advertising", and "Deceptive Business Practices" - now IMHO to an ordinary person all three of Gensler's claims boil down to the generic term "false advertising" - further I don't think the average Wiki reader cares about the Lanham Act (they might not care about a 12(b)(6) dissmissal either - perhaps "[Gensler's] claim for relief that is plausible on its face" would be better here). The bottom line is that there is enough human-speak (non-legal) text from the actuall ruling by Guzman to describe both the suit and the dismissal in an understandable fashion.

.

Food for thought, Nova just think about this,if you start out with a statment like "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any, to certain design projects while intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution." and end with legalize like "the actions Gensler alleged Strabala to have taken do not violate the Lanham Act" it doesn't seem fair (nor answer a question) why not start with legalize "Gensler claimed Strabala violated the Lanham Act" I am not saying do this but only pointing out the "bias" in using normal terminology introducing the Gensler suit and obtuse legalize when the suite was dismissed due to what I have discussed at length above.

• I think it best to wait 13 days to see if Gensler either "file a new complaint" or waive that right, as per Guzman's order "If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this suit with prejudice with the understanding that plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this litigation." note the word prejudice if Gensler doesn't re-file then the case is "dismissed with prejudice because Gensler's claim for relief was not plausible on its face". Look I know I write a lot (and as such am taking up your time) and I do appreciate you taking this issue again and your efforts this morning (good find on the opinion) as I had hope you would when I reopened the above discussion, and in the end I would feel much better if we can come to an agreement before posting an update and let you do the post do to my obvious bias.
• With the above in mind I respectfully request that you back out your recent update to the Marshall_Strabala Wiki article as it is a bit misleading and very confusing - further we should work on something that we a) both can agree on and b) is short and meaningful to the average reader. Thanks in Advance 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Please stop interjecting comments within other editor's posts. It makes it nearly impossible to follow. To briefly address the SunTimes wire article, if you think it is a press release (and thus not a RS), take it to WP:RSN, but I am telling you, it is not a press release. It looks like WLS-AM added the logo when they reprinted the wire. Architect magazine cited it and sourced it to WLS (Chicago) (see footnote 11 in the current version).

As for the update, I assume you don't have a problem with how I collapsed sentences in the first paragraph of the litigation section. It seems your problem is with the three new sentences making up the second paragraph. The first and third sentences are undeniably accurate, short, and understandable (assuming one clicks through to see what the Lanham Act is). With this edit, I added in reference in the second sentence to the rule you thought was so important.

As for the ”facts”, it looks like the judge was paraphrasing Gensler's complaint. And those facts don't say anything not already in this article (that Strabala worked on several projects as part of a team). The judge didn't say that Strabala was accurately characterizing whatever role Strabala claims to have played. But anybody can read the whole thing; it is referenced and linked (and less than 6 pages long).

As for making edits before getting your agreement here, that applies to you per WP:COI, not me. I don't know any of these people. I suggest that, in a new section for clarity's sake, you briefly indicate what you think is incorrect in the current text or indicate what should be added. And then briefly say why.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nova to address your questions

1) As to "Please stop interjecting comments within other editor's posts" my bad, however in my defense, I identified myself and also indented for clarity (will not happen again). Well you messed with my post in Talk when you split my post up by making a new Lead (this section) so technically you are guilty of the same (but all is forgiven)

2) I said I would contact "Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago for clarification" I was NOT planning on making an edit nor did I ask you too. Any one is free to do research [right], if I found out that it was a press release disguised via a Court subpoena wouldn't that bias the article? I am not saying I will find anything. However it is obvious to me that there is only one (1) source ref #11 merely cuts-n-pastes from ref #4. Educate me here is there is an article called "A" (ref #4) with a footer "© Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago Sun-Times 2011. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed" and there is a citation "B" (ref #11) which takes fragments e.g. a change isn't it the same cite. Also "B" would be copyright violation due to cut-n-paste but also false attribution of "A" as the source rather than Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago. If that is the Wikipedia way I'll accept it (build from cites even if it is really the same cite).

3) A comment to what is more controlling the ""Sun-Times Media Wire Chicago" the Judges "paraphrasing" or the actual Gensler complaint, I would have to say the later the complaint. But who picks and chooses the "phrase" from Docket #1 as it can create a false opinion. (for now this is a non-issue to me, nor am I asking anyone to do anything)

4) You say the Judges "facts don't say anything not already in this article (that Strabala worked on several projects as part of a team)", but the Judge said Strabala was the "Design Director" not just part of the team. He also said "Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works." very clear to me sort of like tortuous business interference. What is in the Wiki article right now is this "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any" and the "if any" implies that Strabala didn't even have a role which is patently false by your own statement (leaving Guzman out of it).

5) My biggest problem is the lack of consistency in the section one should either say (simplified without legalize) something like:

Gensler sued Strabala alleging he "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any, to certain design projects while intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution" however Judge Ronald A. Guzman dismissed all claims ("false designation of origin", "false advertising", and "Deceptive Business Practices") finding Gensler's "claim for relief was not plausible".

or it should read like (simplified but using legal jargan)

Gensler sued Strabala alleging Lanham Act violations, 43(a)(1)(A) and 43(a)(1)(B), and also various state Fraud and Deceptive Practices, however all Gensler's claims were dismissed when Judge Ronald A. Guzman granted Strabala's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

If you start out quoting Gensler's allegations in English you should end up quoting Guzman's ruling in English. I am not saying that we do things exactly like the above - I am just explaining one of my big issues to you yet once again. You have to be consistent on both sides of the coin. Look the phrase "misrepresented the nature of his contribution, if any, to certain design projects while intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution" is straight out of docket #1, Gensler's own puffery in a non-certified complaint. I didn't cherry pick items from docket #16 and #17 from Strabala's briefs, I only picked FACTS form the Judges opinion that supported his ruling - that IMHO is being pretty neutral.

6) I do indeed have a problem with how you "collapsed sentences in the first paragraph" The Gensler Paragraph should be stand alone and the SOM Paragraph should be standalone. I find the ping pong between Gensler and SOM and and then to the dismissal paragraph hard to read and very confusing. Gensler should be a standalone paragraph, SOM should be a stand lone paragraph.

7) Next "The judge gave Gensler fifteen days to file a new complaint." if this is really important, and Gensler doesn't file it should be removed. FYI many rulings grant a few weeks to re-file making the statement immaterial - obviously if they do refile it means something and should be documented. Yet if you had held off for two weeks this wouldn't be an issue.

8) You say "As for making edits before getting your agreement here, that applies to you per WP:COI, not me. I don't know any of these people" - this doesn't mean you got things right or you made a proper update. Also just because I am a WP:COI doesn't mean I can not make a meaningful objective edit we all know that - I just choose not to. I could have done my edit but reviewing the history of this page I believe you would have removed it so in good faith I tried to work as per the "Fresh Start". I never made an agreement not to post/update nor should I have to tell me what have I done wrong? I thought Wikipedia worked via collaboration and courtesy - did I go wrong in this category also?

9) I want this section "Litigation concerning attribution of credit" as "short" and meaningful as possible while being complete and I am working hard to do that.

10) I will think about things for a while before I do as you ask "briefly indicate what you think is incorrect in the current text or indicate what should be added. And then briefly say why" - I tried to do that but it is now prior in [[29]] (my original thread that got broken. In the next few days I will try again. So for now I don't have any "brief" final text with "brief" reasons - as I ponder things like my question poised in 5) above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

With this edit I did my best to address your issues with the section. I was consistent in paraphrasing and quoting, gave each lawsuit its own paragraph, got rid of ”if any”, etc. I left the 15 days language in because to remove it would imply the case is over. We don't know that it is. As with everything, when there is an update to be had, and update can be added. Novaseminary (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nova, fine for now, will revisit if Gensler files a new complaint or doesn't in about two weeks. I again go back to my statement an update to the main public page was premature. I assume if Gensler doesn't re-file you have no problem removing the "15 day" and adding "with prejudice" after "dismissed the complaint".108.75.223.67 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

May 2012 update

With a new update today 5/8/2012 (to be posted within a few minutes of this Talk) I did my best to address the current situation WRT the Gensler case which is now terminated with predudice in favor of Strabala. First since one of the two cases is now fully dismissed in Strabala's favor, I am updating the LEAD to just reference the litigation section as follows

"However, in June 2011, two of Strabala's former architectural firm employers filed suit concerning attribution of credit."

Note, the two cites are still active in the article. As per page 1 and 2 of the final judgement is that Gensler's suit was unsuccessfully and Judge Guzman noted in his final ruling the follwoing material facts as an independent trier of the truth that a) "From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters." and b) Gensler "sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works." to this end I am removing the "legally incorrect" and repetitive text from the Gensler section of [30]

"According to Gensler, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[11] When it is finished, the tower will become China's tallest building and the world's second-tallest building.[6]"

However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[4]

After all has now Gensler lost thier suit, it has been dismissed with prejudice, Gensler also that failed to make a valid claim or amend their complaint despite being given not one but two chances. Based on law Gensler is now barred form every making a claim against Strabala again specifically Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it. Since Gensler can not make a legal claim an more under the doctrine of res judicata they certainly can not continue making allegations. Based on the same reasons I also removed the "pursued under copyright law" and the "fifteen days to file a new complaint" text from the "Litigation concerning attribution of credit" section below

and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law."[15][16] The judge gave Gensler fifteen days to file a new complaint.

Fact Gensler didn't file in 15 days, nor did it file copyright complaint or any other amended complaint as such the text or similar text is somewhat misleading and meaningless now. What Gensler did was ask (in a faulty fashion) for the ruling to be reconsidered. The key things in this concluded case are facts noted by Judge Guzman as per page 1 and 2 of the final judgement which I have will now include (and discussed previously in this Talk) as follows

Judge Guzman noted in his opinion the following material facts contrary to Gensler's allegations:

"From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."

Gensler "sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works."

The only remaining active item in the Gensler v. Strabala case is a recent motion by Strabala against Gensler for Sanctions I have entered an update as follows as per docket #72 specifically the end of paragraph B on page 4

Now that the case is terminated with prejudice in Strabala's favor, his attorneys have filed a motion to collect sanctions since "Gensler knew from the outset that any statements by Strabala that he “designed” the buildings was neither a “false claim” or a “willful misrepresentation,” as alleged in its Complaint".

I will post update based upon this today and of course anyone is free and encouraged to both improve and modify my text Nova or others. If anyone wants to discuss the changes, I will look back in this TALK everyday for the next week or two and respond promptly. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• I don't think you are quite accurately summarizing what the judge said; the judge didn't determine any facts, he only assumed them. According to this law professor's coverage of the case, Strabala could have lied entirely about his role in designing the buildings, it just wouldn't matter in this kind of case. I have reverted what you did and with these edits have noted in the lead that one of the two cases was dismissed and removed reference to the judge letting Gensler issue a new complaint in 15 days (leaving just that the case was dismissed). That seems the most consistent with what is available and avoids OR to the extent possible and consistent with the minimal RS coverage teh case has received (here and possibly RS here). Novaseminary (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nova, first I have some comments to 'your' belief that I am "accurately summarizing what the judge said", the judge said what he said (I quoted him from his ruling from the section with the title "Facts", I am positive your source Rebecca Tushnet did not 'accurately summarize what the judge said'. Next, I follow up with questions about your revert and the small edits you added, there are obviously many improvements that can be made.

As to "assumed them" Nova, "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" on page one (1) has a section with the title "Facts" it does not start with "My Assumptions", what this means is that the Judge lookde at all pleadings (which included discovery) from both sides and formed and judicial opinion. These were not assumptions of the Judge. Below the Judge references Gensler's own Complaint - Gensler themselves said he was the "Design Director"

From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

What the above means is go to Paragraph 9 of Gensler's filed complaint. In a similar situation we have the following:

While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston BalletCenter, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.)

Here we once again go to paragraphs 10,11,13,and 14 of Gensler's complaint. Now this is where judicial review comes in Gensler (my words now) attempted to "gloss" over the fact that Strabala was the "Design Director". actually the Director of Design in ¶¶ 10-14 across these buildings. The complaint was not certified and after due diligence the Judge discounted Gensler's puffery and wrote the truth in a judicial opinion which hold so much weight this would even color the case in the event of a future appeal (if any) by Gensler. For example although most of the items are "confidential" or "attorney's eyes only" a few items can be found in the record I invite you to visit. The "Motion by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions" (docket #71), note, I mistakenly put #71 on my update that you reverted in full, dated May 4, 2012. Specifically inspect exhibit A pages 12-13. You will see that Marshall Strabala was a) at the top of the organizational chart in tow places - first as "Director of Design", and second as "Design Team Lead". It was items like this that the Judge relied on which proved that Marshall in fact the designer of the Shanghai Tower and other works.

As to "According to this law professor's coverage of the case" - of course Strabala could have lied and of course he could have told the truth. Did Ms. Tushnet review all filings, was she privy to unpublished transcripts between the attorneys and Judges, did she discovery marked "confidential", "highly confidential" and "attorney's eyes only" - of course she didn't. Now her exact comment (not what you quoted) was: "What if Strabala were in fact entirely uninvolved with the firm that did the designs at issue? The Dastar ruling means it doesn't matter: there's still no cause of action when a different architect, not part of these projects at all, claims to have designed them.". Also Ms. Tushnet is patently wrong in here lead up when she says "the court doesn't specify whether Gensler alleged that Strabala didn't in fact work on the Dubai, UAE, or Nanjing projects" ( I beleive these are projects done while Strabala was at at SOM ) but for now assume they are Gensler projects (and forgive Tushnet's oversight). As I have pointed out the court does say under the heading "Facts" in its opinion that

While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston BalletCenter, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.)

so you give more weight to a Ms. Tushnet than a Federal Judge, don't get me wrong Ms. Tushnet seems quite smart she write better than me, but she obviously a) is not involved directly with the case and thus not as qualified as a Judge and b) she appears to have a very very close relationship with Gensler's law firm, Bingham McCutchen LLP. In this light Ms. Tushnet is a meat puppet for Gensler. Don't take my word for it I did a google on - Bingham McCutchen LLP +"Rebecca Tushnet" - results are here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xiP6B0mf_4v2JEN_311OQNb-tPY4j365dwbWqK5JeR8/edit - but do your own. Seems like she shares a lot of commonality with Bingham McCutchen LLP Gensler's law firm - this makes her, Rebecca Tushnet a potential WP:COI. Next couple the ad hominum attack on Strabala in the blog's title "Architect can falsely claim to have designed buildings, court rules" with her disclaimer at the end "Comment: Yeah, I know the caption's extreme, but consider". This is the classic "Nova, do you still beat your wife" here I use a guilt by association tactic whether it is gtrue or not it smeers your name and reputation. Does the ruling say the above title no it doesn't the article is just a PR piece done for Rebecca Tushnet's friends over at Bingham McCutchen LLP. Was Rebecca Tushnet under oath and the penalty of perjury when she wrote the artical could she have lied of course, or more likely she made a point, a PR piece, to "help" her friends at Bingham McCutchen LLP (many of whom are adjunct professors at her university). Regardless you seem to have completely discounted "findings of fact" by a Federal Jurist, Guzman, in favor of some blogger.

Your current edits

• LEAD - you keep stressing litigation (yet it is being resolved). In my update I prefered to merely reference the "litigation section". Now Nova as to your choice of words "though one of the lawsuits was since dismissed on procedural grounds" does seem to color opinion and leave open a "false" view that it could be re-litigated or the Strabala was "guilty" of something/ I would imporve it and choose a simple sentance "though one of the lawsuits has been dismissed". Why would I do this a) anyone who cares may either read the following "litigation section" in the article and/or do their own research and b) the case was dismissed with prejudiced Gensler can not appeal under any grounds including Copyright (they were offered such an option, in fact they could have amended the complaint to say 'the moon is made of cheese' yet Gensler chose not to. Due to the concept of a "final judgement" and "res judicata" the case and any similar claim are over. I understand that you don't want to say "Marshall Strabala Vindicated" but you are implying that "Marshall Strabala only 'beat the rap' on procedual grounds". As such next week barring no improvement in this sentance or strong posistion by others I will change the LEAD to end with:

", two of Strabala's former architectural firm employers sued him alleging that he had "misrepresented" the role he played in various projects, though one of the lawsuits has been dismissed."

• 2.2.Gensler - you seem to insist on leaving in the highly repetitive sentences that are parti fo Gensler's unsuccessful suit form Gensler's complaint.

Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."

However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.

First these items belong in the "Litigation concerning attribution of credit" section as they are part of the complaint. Although I imagine if you insist that somethign has to be here in this section that a statement like

"Gensler is of the opinion that it is the source of the architectural and design services rendered of all projects Strabala worked on while at Gensler. However Gensler was unsuccessful in a law suit against Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works."

The above in "2.2.Gensler" would be much more balanced, and quotes from the opinion. Without both sides of the coin this has undue bias.

• Litigation concerning attribution of credit - you start this section as

"In June 2011, Gensler, sued Strabala alleging in a complaint that after founding"

I still believe the it should start as follows:

"In June 2011, Gensler, filed an unsuccessful suit against Strabala".

It is best to give the proper tone and color without forcing a reader to go to the "end" of a paragraph. Next the manner in which it was dismissed is very important.

'dismissed the complaint by Rule 12(b)(6) because'

should definitely be the following - Gensler did not make an amended complaint - as such the final verdict is "with prejudice" this is very important.

'dismissed the complaint with prejudice by Rule 12(b)(6) because'

I feel that the inclusion of 'and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law."' at the end gives a false representation. Nova just poking fun (let me know if I am out of line and I won't do it again) - earlier you say "the judge didn't determine any facts, he only assumed them" - but now it seems when he writes something down it has the weight of the 10 commandments. The issue here is that Gensler could have ammended the complaint with "the moon is made of cheese", the judge said you want to pursue this try it under Copyright law, but Gensler didn't ammend the compalint thus the litigation is over and the suit has now been dismissed with prejudice and Gensler can never re-litigate this over Copyright (or the moon cheese thing). The inclusion of this text, e.g. copyright, gives the read a false impression that the case could go on. So you should remove the trailing text:

'and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law."'.

If you insist on keeping it (above) in you have to for balance say

'and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law. However Gensler did not amend their complaint and are bared from further actions by the final judgement under the principle of res judicata"'.

- or alternatively -

'. Gensler was unable or chose not to amend their complaint under copyright law (or other legal doctrine) and continue litigation.'

Nova, now to the first main item you reverted out in this section:

Judge Guzman noted in his opinion the following material facts contrary to Gensler's allegations:

• "From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters."
• Gensler "sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works."

I just can't imagine how anyone can discount the "Facts" summerized by the sitting Judge who dismissed a case with prejudice in his opinion and order is of less importance than the hearsay statements (non certified complaint by Gensler) and a professor that blogs who seems to have ties to Gensler's law firm. First, Judge Guzman's view of the "Facts" in this case is the "strongest" third party view into this entire situation. Second, it identifies to the reader what this case was about rather than respond to the WLS article "No one at 2define could be reached for comment Thursday afternoon." Marshall Strabala AKA 2define on advice of counsel after being accused went through ligation and waited with a final ruling in his favor by a sitting Judge to let the law explin his position, Strabala didn't fight a PR battle (like Gensler) he proved to a sitting jurist just what he did via irrefutable documents, and that was written in the "Facts" of the opinion for dismissal by the Judge who tried the case. Somehow I feel that the above two bullets summarize exactly what went down from the "best and most reliable" third party source and as such that is really the meat and potatoes that belong in wikipedia.

Nova, now to the second main item you reverted out in this section:

Now that the case is terminated with prejudice in Strabala's favor, his attorneys view Gensler's actions as "frivolous with no factual basis" and have filed a motion to collect sanctions since "Gensler knew from the outset that any statements by Strabala that he “designed” the buildings was neither a “false claim” or a “willful misrepresentation,” as alleged in its Complaint".

Here the case is over and as is Strabala's right he has filed for Sanctions and this is a public record, why is this less important interesting than comments in 2.2.Gensler e.g. "Gensler is the source of the architectural and design services ..." it is just as factual if not more. Bottom line if this isn't "noteworthy' I sure don't think the stuff in 2.2.Gensler that you reverted is noteworthy. Maybe your "revert" here is my mistake I referenced docket #72 not #71. Yet this goes in line with Marshall Strabala's low key approach "stay out of the limelight" avoid big PR splashes (unlike Gensler) let the litigation run its course and use "public" citable litigation documents to vindicate his good name. Hey Gensler tried to keep everything under "seal" with a protective order they knew and always have known just how smelly their case was.

As indicated above barring any solid feedback form you [Nova] or others, I will make a few minor updates next week, of course if you revert them I will ague my point on specifics once again - thanks in advance for your time and yes I am sure that in a few weeks I will be "fairly happy" with the "balance" we both come up with, FYI I am in no rush here. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• With this edit I tried to fix what you seem most concerned about. The article fairly represents what happened, I think. Novaseminary (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As to "2.2. Gensler" it is still super repetitive I think a single non repetitive stand alone sentence e.g. is better like:

"According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, claimed that Gensler not (Strabala), was the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, and Three Eldridge Place - and that Strabala was but one of many employed on these designs."

of course leave the cites in.

As to "Litigation concerning design credit" the case has been dismissed with predudice and it should read:

"dismissed the complaint with prejudice by Rule 12(b)(6) because, the judge ruled, the actions Gensler alleged Strabala to have taken did not violate the Lanham Act nor related state law and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law."

of course remove the "bold" and leave the cites in.

However, I still have a big issue with and "such claims should be pursued under copyright law."' as it implies that Gensler could continue to make such a claim (under copyright), they chose not to', they didn't amend their complaint which means that they now have no claim under copyright law or any other law - the case is terminated. So leaving it in as pretty misleading to the reader. Furthermore the reader already knows from the prior sentence "Gensler claimed that Strabala's actions violated the Lanham Act and various state laws" why repeat the obvious the definition of 12(b)(6) "is how lawsuits with insufficient legal theories underlying their cause of action are dismissed from court" and furthermore to defend against a 12(b)(6) "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" bottom line a 12(b)(6) has to remove all claims or their is still a case.

"dismissed the complaint with prejudice by Rule 12(b)(6) as there was insufficient legal merit for relief and Gensler also choose not amend their complaint."

of course remove the "bold" and leave the cites in. It is a) obvious that all claims had to be dismissed, and we already stated them (the Lanham Act and various state laws), the claims, in prior to this sentance, and we need only explain a 12(b)(6) a bit. The fact that Gensler could have amended there complaint (e.g. fifteen days) is moot because they didn't (either because the couldn't or they were worried about sanctions due to harassment in litigation, or something else). In law it doesn't matter why the decided not to amend (they had the opportunity) because they are now barred from re-filing under any legal doctrine including copyright or anything else for the matter. By adding "and Gensler also choose not amend their complaint" we show that Gensler choose not to peruse litigation and agreed with the Judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.223.67 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 108.75.223.67 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• You should be paid by the word. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a press release service for Strabala (or anyone), or a law class. Anyone can read the entire decision. With this edit, I have tried to fix your further concerns. Novaseminary (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (I think) Nova, I know I am verbose, but I don't like much making the edit myself seeing the issues others have had, and yes I know it is not a press release (newsworthy and current are the standards), the remaining nit I have is basically the redundancy in "2.2. Gensler" e.g. there are two sentences in which Gensler claims them not Strabala ..., as I said before I like taking your last update here and making one standalone sentence:

"According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, claimed that Gensler not (Strabala), was the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, and Three Eldridge Place - and that Strabala was but one of many employed on these designs."

If you find the time to come up with something cleaner and non-redundant that would be great, otherwise I might try again in a month or two. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI