Talk:Jamie Metzl

message: This article was the subject of a Brown Alumni Magazine article which can be read here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange... Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown Alumni Magazine 

message: User:Jamiemetzl, who has written the lion's share of this mostly unsourced and overeditorialized article, is the subject of this article. He only ever has contributed to this article about himself. In this editorial in the Brown Alumni magazine, he expresses anger that the article previously was deleted and admits to writing (and rewriting) it. It is mere self-promotion. See WP:YOURSELF. Wikophile (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy WP:PROMOTION and the guideline WP:AUTOBIO are particularly relevant.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-promotion by subject 

message: Per WP policies listed above, the long list of publications, interviews, task forces, interpretive dances, etc, is too long--indeed it's longer than the text of this article.  The list needs to be pruned.  I'd prefer that someone else does this rather than myself (maybe Jamie can do it himself?  Jamie?), but if not, I will go ahead and do the pruning.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have done some pruning, in light of the WP policies noted above.  He still has more publications listed than Henry Kissinger, so I think we are okay.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOTLINKEDIN]], [[WP:LINKFARM]], [[WP:PROMOTION]] 

message: I made an attempt to improve the article in a number of edits addressing: a) unsourced, b) promotional, c) undue content. And adding one paragraph for COVID-19 lab leak theory, the topic for which the subject has probably received more reliable source coverage than for all the other topics in the article. @Alansohn reverted almost all of my edits, including the "Like resume" tag I placed, without fixing any issues, in fact it's more of a resume than after my edits. Alansohn left a misleading edit summary . I apologize for my last edit summary not indicating why I removed so much content, but that doesn't justify a revert without appropriate edit summary. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with User:AncientWalrus's edits can be seen in This edit, which claims to merely "Add COVID-19 lab leak sentences" while somehow (perhaps inadvertently) butchering away a full third of the content of the article. This appeared deliberately misleading. In good faith, I reinserted the material that had been inserted to "Add COVID-19 lab leak sentences" while restoring the deleted content and updating several references. I hope that AncientWalrus can offer a far better explanation for their actions in removing huge swathes of sourced content, perhaps this time without engaging in personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already apologized for not noting deletion in my last edit summary. Not everything that is sourced has a right to be part of the article. In any case, the article is promotional, it is incoherent (e.g. chronologically), it includes undue items like . It still contains text added by what appears to be the subject of the article. I'll give the pruning another go, then. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've now finished pruning in a more piece meal fashion. He claims to have been on a WHO committee. Would be good to add this if it's true. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliably sourced content 

message: I made an attempt to prune weakly sourced content from this BLP in line with policy in these edits: . Alansohn summatorily reverted all my edits with very limited justification: . @Alansohn please provide edit by edit justification of why you consider the reversion of each of my edits is warranted. In contrast to you I've already done so (briefly) in each edit's summary. Thank you. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *, you've prove my point for me. After being pushed to follow policy and dig deeper, the worst you could find that you believed demand removal was a portion of a quotation. I have no connection whatsoever of any kind to Jamie Metzl; the fact that he mentioned me once in a discussion about how Wikipedia works (or doesn't work) in no way indicates that my actions here constitute a conflict of interest. Alansohn (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *:It's incorrect that . In fact, this was just something that I thought that you could not imagine you objecting to. I still consider my other edits to be valid. Stop distracting and start arguing why you reverted the other edits or I will remove them in the future. It is not only the fact that he mentioned you once, but the fact that you seem to be proud of it and the fact that you don't engage in constructive discussion regarding my edits that creates in my eyes the appearance of conflict of interest or ownership. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of weakly sourced statements