Talk:Mo Foster

message: Approaching a B-class, has multiple subheadings with good content, and a useful image. However it is very short of references, and the image is fair use, not completely free, when the person is alive and not a recluse. Have you tried sending him an email and asking if he would be willing to contribute a free image? User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is a great guide on that. Thorough references would make it a B-class, a free image isn't completely required, but would help. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B-class. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment I don't do GA evaluation, as Wikipedia:Good article nominations is a different project, and requires more work to evaluate properly (while Stub/Start/B is a fairly quick evaluation), but just as a brief starting comment, a lot of the sections are very listy. They say: "Mo Foster has also worked with (long list of names)" or "Mo Foster has also worked on (long list of titles)" or similar. That's all right for B-class, which mostly requires that most of the content for a good article be there, not as much style; but I suspect GA or higher reviewers might have issues with the quality of the prose. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: # (cur) (last)  16:17, September 27, 2007 Reswobslc (Talk | contribs | block) (14,511 bytes) (Third revert of this same content. Read WP:BLP.) (rollback | undo)
# (cur) (last) 16:14, September 27, 2007 WebHamster (Talk | contribs | block) (15,183 bytes) (Undid revision 160742640 by Reswobslc (talk) rv bad faith vandalism) (undo)
Folks, you both mean well. May I suggest there is room for compromise here? It is true that unsourced controversial information about living persons should be removed immediately, per Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. That said, saying that someone is a vegetarian and loves humor is not likely to be grounds for a libel suit. Is there, maybe, an interview with Foster that says that that this information can be sourced to? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Reswobslc is currently engaged in a bad faith exercise due to a recent article of his being submitted to AfD by myself and ultimately being deleted. The current edits to this article demonstrate this. All the information in the "personal section" of the Mo Foster page have been gleaned from his book, his website and his work. User:Reswobslc is currently attempting to use wiki-lawyering to disguise his attempts at childish revenge. ---- WebHamster 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly no one will sue over what he likes to eat and laugh at, but comments like him being a "die hard New Scientist subscriber" and liking "toilet humor" are closer to the edge.  It becomes even murkier when the person alleging a "die hard" subscription to New Scientist is also posting references to New Scientist elsewhere in Wikipedia, like here and here just for a couple recent examples in the last 24 hours.  One would suspect it's User:WebHamster, not Mo Foster, that's the die-hard subscriber - especially when he protests the removal of these references.  While the addition of sources (despite my inability to verify them) is enough for me to not continue deleting the text, it's fair to point out that this edit deserved special scrutiny. Reswobslc 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What planet are you on? ---- WebHamster 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like during your current bout of wiki-lawyering you seem to have conveniently forgotten all about "assume good faith". Your latest vendetta seems to be going awry somewhat. The fact of the matter is that I don't read New Scientist at all. It's too boring for me, but, and you don't seem to have considered this possibility, Mo sent me those articles as he thought I'd be interested in them. I really think you are scraping the barrel in your pursuit of vengeance. In over 5000 edits I've added to 2 articles based on NS articles (in less than half a dozen edits I guess), not the nefarious NS advertiser you appear to be making me out to be. I'd recommend quitting now before you get yourself into wiki-trouble. Your contrib list is already giving me all the evidence I need to make a complaint of stalking. I haven't done so so far, but if you persist I will. ---- WebHamster 01:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to make a mountain out of a Mo hill here.  If you really have this book, and Mo himself said everything you said, your references and additions would be rock solid if you simply attributed them to Mo himself, and indicate that he published him in (place, page number, etc.) of his own autobiography (if that is indeed so).  Your choice to insert this content unsourced into the article multiple times when the rules clearly say not to, is no reflection of my "wiki-behavior".  It is not "wiki-lawyering" to insist that you cite your sources when you make statements about living people.  Nevertheless, as you can see I have requested an outside opinion, as you clearly consider mine biased. Reswobslc 07:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I am requesting a third opinion as to whether the newly added Mo Foster#Personal life section is sufficiently sourced.  Edit history and the previous section will show a little bit of an edit war - where I and its author repeatedly reverted one another, and its author sees my actions as being in bad faith.  As objectively as I can tell, both rationales (WP:BLP requires everything about living persons to be strongly sourced, versus some of these items are likely uncontroversial) have merit.
Although the section's author has "sourced" them, he has done so by pasting the same "reference" five times into the section, none of them being anything more than a generic reference to the title of a nearly 400 page book.  Even if the statements are true, I am not sure how one can make a statement that somebody is a "die hard" subscriber of any magazine or ideology on Wikipedia without it being original research, or without at least attributing it to someone who made and published such a statement (i.e. "In his autobiography (ref), Foster describes himself as a "die-hard" subscriber" if that is indeed the case.).  It is not as though the author doesn't know how to cite sources (see this example of his excellent job providing sources for the gay lifestyle article Glory hole).  My concern is that the sourcing is likely to be bogus and overly broad (after all, if he really has access to this book, why isn't he adding something more specific when he certainly knows he could and should?).  If people everywhere started to write comments about living people and broadly sourced them with nothing more than the name of a book, Jimbo would be jumping all over it.  Overshadowing my concern (and the reason for the third party request) is the possibility that these items may be uncontroversial enough that WP:BLP doesn't matter here, or at least matters less, taking note that while WP:BLP is still a very important rule, that it's still possible to go ridiculously overboard with it, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Reswobslc 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the Glory hole article, as per usual your accuracy is flawed. If you'd read the article history instead of my contrib list you would have seen that I didn't supply any of those references. In that article all I did was clean it up and format the reference coding properly. ---- WebHamster 12:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you went to great lengths to make sure that I sourced every single sentence in the "Personal info" and deleted everything that wasn't, and I explained that the details in that section were gleaned from his book. You left me very little choice but to do as I have done. Perhaps if you spent less time assuming bad faith and indulging in paranoia about my motives you will allow me to continue to contribute to Wikipedia instead of having to clean up behind your trail of wiki-stalking. As for using the same reference 5 times, I did so using the correct formatting for a "multi-reference". Now unless you have managed to impart something useful to the article, instead of demonstrating chagrin because your attempts to be disruptive are being thwarted, may I suggest that you go edit another article that you have at least some semblance of knowledge about. It's totally apparent you have nothing useful to add to Mo Foster's article because. Alternatively may I suggest you go buy his book so you can appease your paranoia and check that the sources are accurate. To help you though, and to explain partly why I haven't been specific in the references, there are 2 British editions of the book (each considerably different to each other) and 2 US-specific editions which again are different to each other and different to the UK versions. Additionally there is a rewrite in progress for a 3rd edition which is different again from all the other editions. As a good faith tip from one editor to another, in the main I steer clear of articles on, say, Nuclear fission because I have no knowledge of the subject, perhaps you should to? ---- WebHamster 09:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've used the above suggestions to rewrite the section. I've reduced the effect of POV and used more neutral terms, though given that this is information on Mo's enjoyments/interests it can never be totally NPOV as I am attempting to portray Mo's POV on certain things. To answer your question about the music sample. I take it you didn't listen to it? If you had you would have realised that it's a reference to the comment about toilet humour. As regards the alleged 3RR infringement. I disagree. They were reversions of vandalism. Reswobslc did not just delete what he considered to be violations of WP:BLP, he deleted everything including valid and non-controversial information. In my view that is out-and-out vandalism. He may assert that it was BLP, but my answer to that is WP:HORSE. ---- WebHamster 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The vandalism thing is getting to be a bit of a WP:DEADHORSE.  There's no merit to it, there never was.  Let me help you say what you want to say, and keep it within the guidelines.  It is OK to insert points of view as long as you attribute them to a source.  That means, the article factually describes them as somebody else's viewpoint, rather than appearing to assert the viewpoint itself.  Compare "Mo likes jazz music" to "Mo states in his autobiography that he likes jazz music".  The first is an opinion - the second is an undisputable fact.  You don't even need to go overboard with "Mo states..." - if you were to start your section with an introduction that clearly indicated you were commenting on his personal life based on details from his autobiography, and kept it in a neutral tone (such as avoiding "die hard" unless Mo used this term himself) and free of conclusions (he loved "this" therefore he did "that", or that his love for "that" is a given) the text would be bulletproof.  The "which edition of the book" issue is not a problem - just simply cite it from which edition you have, and what part of the book - and make sure the cite mentions which edition you are using.  (There's no rule that you can only cite the most recent edition of a book.  As long as they are all from him, you may cite ANY edition and it's fine).  If the audio file proves he likes scatological humor, posting it is unnecessary if that's the only point of posting it.  Simply attributing the opinion to someone who's made it (or his autobiography as well, if he's stated this himself) is acceptable.  If nobody has said it, and the conclusion is yours and is supposed to be obvious from listening to the audio, then unfortunately that's WP:OR (original research) and can't stick in the article per the rules. Reswobslc 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get a few things straight, firstly do not delete my comments, secondly do not attempt to tell me what it is I want to say. The vandalism thing is not a dead horse. You deleted information that did not correspond with your lame excuse. None of what you deleted was libellous or offensive. You could have equally used citation needed tags. You chose the option that in your view would cause most upset. As far as I am concerned that is vandalism. You still haven't explained why you deleted the other material. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -Jimbo Wales (as cited at WP:BLP) Reswobslc 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Jimbo is not always right. 2) You still deleted material after I told where it was sourced from. So this quote does not hold sway. If you wish to revere Jimbo as a messiah then please do so, just don't do it to me. Citation tags, as per custom and practice, are the de facto standard for bringing notice to unsourced information. If you delete them then it's not going to get sourced from other editors now is it? The fact that I am aware of the deletion is neither here nor there. Another editor who could have sourced it would not know to do so due to the deletion. So in this instance, Jimbo is out an out wrong. There was no offensive or libellous comment, there was no infringement of BLP, there was merely your interpretation of unsourced material to which you over-reacted for the benefits of pissing me off. You know it, I know it. That isn't going to change. Now quit following me around Wikipedia. You will notice that although I could have done the same to you I haven't. I have seen edits you have done which could be wiki-lawyered into the bit bucket, I haven't done so. The AfD that started this was correctly carried out, the consensus went against you. Live with it and move on. ---- WebHamster 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your argument against 3RR does not apply. If it really was vandalism, you should have stopped before the third reversion, and instead gone to the administrators to request a block. Read Reswobslc's comment, particularly the section about comparing how to state things; he is correct. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the advice, but I already knew that. I didn't change the others due to laziness, as if you notice in the WP:References article it states that it's unimportant what goes in the subsequent reference tags. The end result is the same. I was only interested in the end result., but thanks anyway. As regards the 3RR, I lost count as I was having to follow the guy all over WP correcting the results of his wiki-stalking. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion request 

message: Setting aside a dearth of proper sources to back up statements, this article very much needs a reduction of chattiness and chaff. Wikipedia is (in theory at least) an encyclopedia. It is NOT the place for essays or critical studies. It's really not for "fun facts" trivia — for that, fans may go to a musician's personal website. And it is not WP's place to be "human" or any other warm/fuzzy sentiment. 
There is a crying need for updating. Despite the present-tense persistence, the most recent fact in the body is dated 2012; aside from that, the story appears to stop dead in 2007. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs moderate editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mo Foster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021231035614/http://www.mickronson.com/MickRonson/mickwith%20others.htm to http://www.mickronson.com/MickRonson/mickwith%20others.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Mo died today 3/7/2023 2A02:C7C:DCED:C00:2002:CC28:81E2:DF1 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No died today 3 July x