Talk:Russ Ramsey/Archives/2015

Reinstating this draft

I'm creating the Talk page for this draft to outline the recent chain of events around it and to discuss the next steps involved in getting it reviewed by another editor. To summarize my concern: my draft was declined on the basis of a copyright violation that I am quite convinced I didn't commit. The reviewing editor, Joseph2302, said that it "[l]ooks like a copyvio" of this press GWU press release. I think it should be obvious that it isn't.

I submitted the draft through Articles for Creation on June 12. With it, I left a comment for reviewing editors notifying them of my COI and asking for a careful review because of it.

Despite the backlog of articles waiting for review, the draft was declined and the submission was "blanked" out for a copyright violation on June 13, a day later. There was no other explanation or note and I didn't notice the draft had been reviewed until today. I find this decision perplexing, since the draft is well-sourced using 28 different references (reliable, overwhelmingly secondary sources) that were all cited properly. The wording is my own and no images were used. Certain the decision was made in error, I wrote in a message to the reviewing editor, Joseph2302, explaining that I was planning on reverting his review (in order to restore the blanked draft) and asking for any specific areas he thought might be too close to the source so that I could change them. I then undid his review of the draft.

Less than an hour later, Joseph2302 reverted my action, deleted my note from his Talk page (stating in the edit summary that he has banned paid editors from posting on his Talk page), and posted a warning on my Talk page. That warning included a link to the site, a press release, he claimed that my draft violated the copyright of. You may view that press release here.

Upon first view, I think it's clear that my draft did not copy the press release. My draft uses standard Wikipedia headings, citations, formatting, contains more (and much different) information than is in the press release, and is written using significantly different language and structure. I've even gone line by line to look for any similar phrasing and the closest thing I could find is the summary of Mr. Ramsey's baseball career. However, I'm confident this too was handled appropriately. (I've never seen this press release). The facts may be the same, but that's simply because they are the facts.

I believe that declining the draft based on a copyright violation is absolutely wrong in this case, and I hope others will agree. Even if there were a few instances where sentences too closely resembled the press release, which is not the case, I think the appropriate measure should have been to point them out so I could fix them—not to blank out the entire draft.

I'd like to ask that other editors replace my draft and give it another review. I don't mind feedback and rewriting based on those critiques. I do mind my submission being declined on false grounds. Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

When I reviewed it, the copyvio report said that it was a likely copyvio, therefore I followed procedure and blanked the submission. Copyrighted material is not permissible anywhere on Wikipedia.

Also, in answer to your claims, I'm allowed to review articles, and I often look through the longest articles, because they're the ones most susceptible to copyright violations. It's not "very clear that it isn't a copyvio", because the copyright detector was clear that it was a copyvio. Also, given that it had been blanked as a copyvio, you never should have reinserted it, because that's reinserting copyrighted text.

Also, my talkpage is very clear- paid editors are banned from it, exactly for this reason- so paid editors having incorrect complaints can't just spam my talkpage with rubbish. I'm perfectly entitle to ban you from it, and it's nothing personal, unlike the above post, which appears to be a personal attack against me. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I rechecked it yesterday (when you undid my edit, I was notified which was why it was "so quick to rerevert"), and it said copyvio- the copyvio tool checker isn't working for me at the moment (503 error).

I know you're being paid to create this, and therefore paid to argue, but that doesn't make you right. Frankly, before this I thought you were one of the best paid editors I'd worked with, First Fidelity Bank was a well-written article. But these attacks against me are so uncalled for- even if there was a mistake, you should have asked for assistance instead of reverting, and all your other claims of prejudicing against this article are nonsense. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The above is not meant to be a personal attack. It is a genuine expression of confusion and call for help, because I haven't been able to have a discussion with you about this draft.

My note on your Talk page quite nicely stated that I thought you had made an honest mistake. I also asked for assistance with improving the article. Your terse response seemed to indicate that you weren't willing to reconsider your decision and that I would actually have to argue my case to have the tag removed. So that's what I've done. If my frustration creeped into the tone, it's because I've been at a loss with how you could have come to this conclusion. I understand that from your perspective, you were just following procedure, but from mine, it seemed like a draft I'd carefully worked on was shut down for pretty much no reason.

I do see my part in this, and I apologize for reverting the review and not following protocol. That won't happen again. I would have liked to resolve this differently and hope that we still can. I'm unfamiliar with the copyvio tool checker, but I think that if you personally compare the draft to the press release, it should become very clear that it's not a violation. Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Heatherer: I don't believe that I did make a mistake, and I would recheck it with the copyvio tool, but the tool is currently broken. But in the spirit of good faith, I've unblanked the submission, you can resubmit it if you want. I will provide the copyvio check results when the tool is working again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture of good faith, Joseph2302. For what it's worth, I don't believe you made the mistake, but I do suspect that the tool could have generated a false positive. I'm interested in taking a look at it once it's back up and running. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've resubmitted it for review by the way (I assumed you wanted this to happen). Also, even if the tools are at fault, it's still my fault for not checking them properly- it's a basic rule on Wikipedia that if you use automated tools, you're responsible for the actions you take with them. And I used 2 automated tools to blank this submission (checking with copyvio tool, and reviewing with the reviewer tool). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Starting this thread to address the orphan tag on this article. I've located two related entries in which Russ Ramsey is already mentioned and can easily be linked to this article. I've listed them along with where Ramsey is mentioned below:

• Rockin' the Corps Reception section, last sentence
• Arlington Asset Investment in the lede

While these are pretty minor edits, I would still prefer if another editor made them due to my COI (disclosed in my previous messages here and when submitting the draft to AfC). Would someone be able to create these links? I reached out to the editor who created the article initially, but they're away and can't assist. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit was requested on my talk page. The Rockin' the Corps article was appallingly promotional. I've cleaned it up somewhat, but I'm unwilling to add Ramsey's name until it gets at least one reliable source, which the Washington Life blurb isn't. The source was a flimsy passing mention, and I've removed it from this article until a source actually provides some context or meaning, or at least mentions Ramsey's role in more depth.

This article doesn't mention Arlington Asset Investment, and there are no obvious sources supporting that connection, so adding that link would be inappropriate. That article also needs sources, although it's not as bad as the Rockin' the Corps one was, thankfully. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell! Thanks for looking this over for me. Fair enough on The Rockin' the Corps article—when I looked for places to link, I didn't really take the quality of the article into consideration. As for Arlington Asset Investment, I found this Washington Post article that shows that Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group changed its name to Arlington Asset Investment, and that Russ Ramsey was one of the company's founders. Do you suppose this is a good enough source to allow a link between Arlington Asset Investment and this article? Does it address your concerns? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the Arlington Asset page, including a wikilink to this article. webMethods is (or was until I removed it) listed here as an example of FBR's success, but this seems like cherry-picking to me. This editorial by Steven Pearlstein lists it as one of dozens of flameouts the firm was involved with during the dot com bubble, along with Lifeminders, (an opt-in spamming service best remembered now for hubris and having a deliberately terrible commercial) and Varsity Books, which has been compared to Pets.com. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)