Talk:J. G. Sandom

message: I am removing the following to the talk page:
;peacock info/unreferenced
J. G. Sandom, often referred to as the "Father of Interactive (Internet) Advertising,"  co-founded the world’s first interactive advertising agency, Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), in 1984iMedia Connection: RappDigital Worldwide's J.G. Sandom,
Sandom built the executive team, purchased equity stakes in off-shore Web production company Critical Mass (Calgary, Canada) and email marketing company Innovyx (Seattle), productized cyber-analytics and e-Care (digital call center) offerings, recruited the first clients, and managed the business until it was on its feet.   He was responsible for executive management of the company, and its growth to more than $40MM in revenues in the U.S., with 300+ employees worldwide, and offices throughout North America, Europe and Latin America -- at a time of industry contraction.  RappDigital Network clients included SBC Communications, Mercedes-Benz, Philips Consumer Electronics, Pfizer, Exelon, Kaiser Permanente and Reuters, among others.
;author review of book
Scott Turow, author of Presumed Innocent and Ordinary Heroes, called , "A gripping story, well-told...not only a tale of murder and betrayal, but an intelligent exploration of issues of male identity
;Unreferenced material:
In 1984, Sandom co-founded Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), the nation's first interactive advertising agency.  
==Early life==
Born in Chicago, the youngest of three children, of a Danish immigrant mother (Else Hvingtoft) and father of Lithuanian ancestry (Zane Joseph Sandom), J.G. Sandom moved to Weybridge, England, at nine months.  Zane Sandom worked for American Express, and the family was transferred to France, where the author first began attending school at St. Martin's, in the town of Jouy-en-Josas, near Versailles.  Less than two years later, Sandom moved to Rome, Italy, where he attended St. George’s English School during the next four years. While in Italy, Sandom performed on the legitimate stage at the Goldoni theatre as a mouse in the English pantomime Cinderella, and in a full-length motion picture produced by Dino De Laurentiis, starring Walter Chiari, called Il Giovedi.
Sandom then moved to San Rafael, California, where he attended the 3-Rs school, and where he first developed an interest in writing. After less than two years in San Rafael, the Sandom family was transferred back to Europe; they resided at the Wentworth Estate in Surrey England, not far from Virginia Water. Sandom attended The Fernden School in Haslemere, Surrey, and Winchester College, in Hampshire, over the next five years, through his "O" levels. During this period, the author’s family was transferred back to the United States, while he remained in boarding school in England.
Sandom returned to the United States at the age of 15. Following two years at New Canaan High School in Connecticut, Sandom entered Amherst College in 1974, where he completed his first novel, THE SEED OF ICARUS. Sandom took a semester off from college in order to work on a freighter (The African Dawn) which traveled to Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique, and then returned to graduate from Amherst with honors with a double major in English and philosophy. While in college, Sandom helped launch a literary magazine called Writing at Amherst with Caroline Thompson, won both the Corbin prize and the Academy of American Poets prize, and studied under a variety of visiting writers, including Robert Stone, Julian Symons and the Nobel Prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney.
Following graduation, Sandom spent several months traveling throughout the Sahara, primarily in southern Algeria, while researching his second novel, THE BLUE MEN. Sandom then moved to New York City where, for the next five years, he worked as a freelance copy writer, public relations and advertising executive, and corporate spokesperson trainer for such companies as Hill & Knowlton and Ketchum Inc.
Odessaukrain (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: The citation is to Advertizing: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (ICON Group 2008); this book widely quotes from Wikipeda and in respect to this assertion appears to directly quote the lead-in in the WP article. What do we call that when a WP Article references itself ? (aside from self-serving). It's certainly still peacock info.-Sticks66 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like peacock, walks like a peacock.... 

message: By the way, Huon, I have reinserted the quote that TheOriginalSoni said was appropriate. Delete it again if you wish. As an all-powerful Wikipedia overlord, that is your prerogative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandom (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ONE FINAL EDIT BEFORE THE ARTICLE DISAPPEARS

message: For the record, Huon (whoever you really are), my daughter took a copy of the old Wikipedia entry about me and used that to update it. So, they were not her words; they were the words of the hive mind. And she did not "share" my account. She used my computer without my permission and went to Wikipedia and, being imperfect, Wikipedia thought she was me -- as I was still logged in! But, thanks for calling me a liar without any documented evidence or appropriate citation.
To TheOriginalSoni I say, "Thanks for your help." I am sorry that some of Wikipedia's other editors felt your advice about adding a couple of book reviews with citations from major industry publications would be okay. Clearly, adding such documented quotes from significant book review publications does not meet the standards of some of Wikipedia's editors.
Now I understand what Andrew Keen, Nicholas G. Carr and Jaron Lanier are all talking about.
Yikes! Then again, it seems that I am not alone in allegedly stepping over the boundaries of what Wikipedia thinks is appropriate:
Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending
BY MEGAN MCCARTHYhttp://www.wired.com/business/2008/03/scandal-in-wiki/</B>
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales didn’t have such a good weekend. First the blogosphere and then Wikipedia itself lit up with news of his messy breakup with controversial Canadian TV pundit Rachel Marsden. Now, accusations are flying that Wales has been living the high life on the expense account of the nonprofit foundation he created.
On Friday, reports surfaced that the married-but-divorcing internet icon carried on a clandestine affair with Marsden. Evidence of the affair included lurid IM transcripts, which appeared on Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag. On Saturday, Wales posted a statement on the Wikipedia Foundations website (which he later moved to his personal site) denying that his actions went against Wikimedia Foundation’s policies, and stating that the affair had ended. Marsden responded by listing the clothes that he left at her house up for auction on eBay.
So, what’s the big deal when a relationship goes sour? Well, the two met when Marsden contacted Wales to help her "clean up" what she perceived to be errors on her personal Wikipedia page, and there have been allegations that Wales used his influence improperly to make changes.
Former associates of Wales’ are using this scandal to bring up other worries they have about the organization at the foundation. Former Wikimedia exec Danny Wool, who left the foundation last year, wrote a blog post insinuating that Wales used the nonprofit foundation as his own personal piggy bank. Expenses that Wales tried to apply to the foundation included $300+ bottles of wine and visits to Moscow massage parlors, Wool alleges. According to Wool, the expenses got so out of hand that the Wikimedia Foundation took away Wales’ corporate credit card.
"There were occasions where he used [the Wikimedia Foundation] for personal advancement under the guide of the mission. And, as someone who was in there for the mission part of it, I found that rather distressful," Wool told Epicenter.
Wales did not immediately respond to a request for comment.''
When this Talk Page and the Article Page that were created about me (by others!) disappear or are blocked by Wikipedia's anonymous Kafkaesque editors, I will have the perfect basis for yet another article in Wired or The New York Times. Way to go Huon. Perhaps you can use the "my little brother did it" defense.
[NOTE: I now regret saying this. Just because Huon called me a liar doesn't give me the right to call him one. On the other hand, I'm only human, and I have very little tolerance for false accusers. You will also note that I didn't just strike or delete this impolite statement. Unlike some unidentified editors at Wikipedia who have summarily removed some of the comments on this Talk Page, I have not unilaterally expunged anything. Nor have I tried to leverage so-called sock puppets to do my dirty work for me. Instead, I tried to reach out directly and without guise to solve this issue, as can be readily seen here on this Talk Page . . . only to be insulted (i.e. called a liar, however indirectly; see immediately below), ridiculed, rebuffed, and my protests here on this Talk Page summarily deleted. Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I called you a liar? Where?
[NOTE: Well, actually, you called me a liar by implication when you referenced the "My little brother did it" defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BROTHER) which states, "But what if I don't have a little brother? ... So what? You're lying anyway; just pretend you have one," and then added, "'my little daughter did it' is not better."] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I said that edits were made by User:Sandom, which is supported by the evidence.
[NOTE: While this is technically true, since the phrase refers to my machine and my account, it's also highly misleading since the reference uses my personal name . . . kind of like the edits you made to the reviews of my books. The evidence points to the fact that the edits were created by my machine, not by me. Let's be clear on that score. You can tell someone (at least I hope so vs. an AI; see Ray Kurzweil) used my machine and account to make the Article Page update. But, unless you have some way to access the camera on my laptop and spy into my home, you have no idea -- absolutely none -- if it was me or the man on the moon. So, please don't claim otherwise.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I do indeed doubt that a 12-year-old would use such wording, and you confirm my doubts by stating that she didn't write that herself but took it from "a copy of the old Wikipedia entry" (which one? I tried to find a previous example of that text in the page history and failed).
[NOTE: This is a mystery to me. Upon asking her, my daughter claimed she couldn't remember where she took it from, but thought it was from an old version of the Article. Frankly, I don't know. It could have been from a bio of mine @ LinkedIn or somewhere else. Beats me. But that really isn't the point, is it? (See the next note.)] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Basically I don't care if the edits were made by you personally, by your daughter or by your dog - it's your account, and you're responsible for the edits made from it.
[NOTE: You are absolutely right, Huon. I am responsible. That, I will not deny. That said, considering that your own rules don't prohibit me from editing the Article Page about me as long as I avoid COI, your allegations concerning the source of these updates is a bit of a smokescreen. The real question is, then, do my edits violate Wikipedia's rules of COI? This is a subjective issue. I don't believe they do. You and a handful of other editors at Wikipedia believe they do. This question runs to the heart of Wikipedia itself. First of all, since you are not only the rule makers but the rule interpreters, I am SOL if I choose to contest your interpretation! You are the legislator (rule maker), prosecutor (as Wikipedia editor), judge (Wikipedia administrator) and jury (Wikipedia administrator/editor-and-chief). The only thing I can do is point this out to people via this forum, the Talk Page . . . unless you opt to, once again, muzzle me by unilaterally deleting my comments, as some invisible person or persons at Wikipedia have done already. In essence, it's like the justice system of North Korea or Iran, where there is equally little tolerance for dissension or "fair play". In fact, in some ways, it's worse, because of the mantle of "democracy" that Wikipedia claims to wear about its person when it states that you are a forum of the people, for the people, and by the people. Not really. Indeed, I don't even know who you are, being that most of Wikipedia's editors hide behind a veil of anonymity. (See Kafka's The Trial, for a close approximation of what is going on here.) Indeed, Wikipedia revels in the fact that you don't accept traditional authority as the source of your editorial scrutiny. You (TheOriginalSoni) claim that reviews of books have no place at Wikipedia, reviews published by professional reviewers at major publications like The Washington Post, and you (Huon) only reluctantly agreed to post it after striking it from the Article page three (3) times. Instead, you couch your authority on the hive, on the nameless and faceless  contributors (backed by a few editor volunteers who, hypocritically, claim to have "authority" due to their knowledge and experience) who constitute your "tyranny of the majority". In other words, an anonymous stranger (with a possible axe to grind, or who is a sock puppet, which seems to be a frequent problem for Wikipedia, based on what I'm reading) has more authority under your system than a scholar with a doctorate degree. This, and the anonymous nature of your editors, is not a strength, as you claim. It is what is worst about Web 2.0, in my view.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Regarding the review you re-added, where did TheOriginalSoni say that review was appropriate?
[NOTE: He never said that, as you know. He said it was okay to post two (2) reviews about my nine (9) books, which I tried to do, but which you kept deleting. Now, in frustration and after seeing the vast amounts of content being posted by other writers/authors here on Wikipedia, I have recommended the posing of three (3); i.e. covering but one third of my books. Further, I have tried to make sure they were balanced reviews, with both positive and negative notes.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: By the way, you accidentally cut short the quote before it mentions the "structural weaknesses in [your book's] architecture".
[NOTE: I cover this issue in SELECTIVE EDITING/REVENGE EDITING, below.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: If we cite reviews, we should cite the bad along with the good.
[NOTE: I completely agree with you re this, Huon, and have tried to select reviews that feature both positive and negative notes.] Sandom (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Finally, I'm no "all-powerful Wikipedia overlord" - I'm not even an admin and don't hold any relevant privileges on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: FOR THE RECORD

message: :I've reverted this edit by User:Sandom for two reasons: Firstly, the Washington Post article doesn't really focus on Sandom and in particular does not contain the "precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction" wording that's supposed to be a quote. Secondly, the Historical Novel Society is a comparatively obscure organization which calls the advocacy for historical novels one of their goals and which, for all I can tell, has very low standards on who can become a reviewer. Kirkus Reviews is a much more reputable reviewing organization. Huon (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A Fond Farewell devotes all of four lines to you, and we should cite it not for the "subtle gem" line but for the connection to your young adult pen name - it's the only source that makes this connection, unless I'm mistaken. The the Library Journal homepage does not mention what you cited it for, and I can find no evidence that they ever reviewed a book of yours, especially not Gospel Truths.
[NOTE: You may not have found evidence, but it exists if you look for it . . . because Library Journal did review it, and they reviewed it favorably. In fact, the review appears on the actual book when the novel was reissued by Bantam in 2007. (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Truths-J-G-Sandom/dp/0553589792/) Unfortunately, it was reviewed by Library Journal back in the early 1990s, before that prestigious review journal went online in any meaningful way.] Sandom (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The Booklist review is hidden behind a paywall; I could sign up for a free trial and check whether your ellipses again hid the less positive parts of the review, but why not go with the Kirkus Reviews one that is available without that hassle? Let me put it this way: The fact that you not only cited only the most positive parts of the Kirkus review but even omitted the ellipsis when you truncated their conclusion inspires no confidence in the accuracy of your other review summaries. While we're at it, the link for the 2007 Teens Top Ten nomination for Kiss Me, I'm Dead is broken, and all I can tell is that the book didn't win. The Jewish Libraries website also gives a 404 error, and I can find no evidence that The Unresolved won. This is beginning to look a little bleak. Huon (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: [NOTE: Well, I guess you can tell that I was getting pretty mad here! LOL  Again, that's really no excuse to be so mean. I'm sorry, Huon. And I should also say I'm sorry to Jimbo Wales. But the point I was trying to make is that prosecution by innuendo is no fun, and all too often not really justified. I am sure Mr. Wales didn't like it when his former partner came out with such accusations about him. I don't know what evidence he had to make his claims of misappropriation of funds against Mr. Wales (as I have never worked at Wikipedia), but it sure looked bad. And, again, that's the point. It looks bad when folks smear one another . . . no matter what the evidence. Still, it was nasty of me to use the same tactics against Huon and Wales here that I am accusing them of using against me. Sorry.]  Sandom (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review reversion 

message: Mr. Sandom,
I just left a message on your talk page. I encourage you to calm down, read my message, and stop acting in what I perceive to be a disruptive fashion. If you continue, an administrator may well block you. I won't, as I'm not an administrator. Just an ordinary editor, not anonymous. Jim Heaphy Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to comment on the proposal content-wise at this point. However, I suggest you go get some brunch because it may take some time to reach a consensus on your proposal. There's no urgency to changing the article; there rarely is any urgency on Wikipedia articles. So please be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: That review lauded some aspects of your work and criticized others. We currently summarize both the praise and the criticism, both backed up by quotes from the review itself. 2605:6000:fec0:2c00:55f:b06b:e1eb:cd8a  (and other editors before) removed most of the criticism (there was no context to that "stock bad guys" line any more; note how the "Instances of sloppiness" part was hidden in an ellipsis) and added another dose of praise instead. That's not a neutral summary of what the review says about your work; thus I reverted 2605:6000's edit. Huon (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that  has described the reasons behind the recent edits well. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy obligates us to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, both positive and negative. Paraphrasing is just as acceptable as quoting, and often even better, as extensive quoting raises concerns about copyright infringement. You accuse Huon of COI, . What evidence do you have that someone is paying Huon to edit Wikipedia to make you look bad? I note that Huon has over 25,000 edits here, as do I, and has contributed to over 10,000 pages on a wide variety of topics. That it the furthest thing from the pattern of a COI editor, who usually focus on a handful of related pages. I encourage you to assume good faith of a highly experienced editor, unless you have rock solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response, (Cullen328) I cannot assume good faith from Huon as he has historically not assumed good faith about my behaviours and intentions on this very Talk page, thereby displaying a partisan bent. It is this bias which makes me accuse him of a COI and of being unfit to edit this article henceforth. I have never accused him of taking money or of being paid by anyone; that's a smokescreen, Jim. But bias and the COI that bias implies comes in many forms. (In the same way that you "banish" those Wikipedia readers whom you consider to be waging edit wars, or who show COI, editors who have demonstrated bias regarding certain subjects or who have made ad hominem accusations not grounded in fact should be prohibited from editing said articles; what's good for the goose, after all.) In short, the evidence you state you require is this Talk page itself. Regarding the quote from the actual review, it is disingenuous to imply that these few lines represent a copyright infringement. Should Huon wish to add the additional few words about my editor's sloppiness in editing the original release of this novel (no longer relevant as these typos and other instances of sloppiness have since been corrected in all other editions), please feel free to do so. For reasons I have already stated, and which you yourself characterized as "good points", I would much rather provide readers of Wikipedia with the true and unadulterated version of the review, featuring no interpretive bias or personal animus, than rely upon Huon's characterization. (In an effort not to obscure the truth, I have provided you with the full review on this very Talk page.) And, clearly, I am not alone. I did not make this edit to the article, subsequently reverted by Huon. Others have attempted to make edits, again based upon actual reviews vs. Wikipedia interpretations of said reviews, and been denied by Huon. That said, in Huon's defense, his biased reversions are far better than the wholesale deletion of comments by Wikipedia editors which this Talk page has experienced in the past (i.e. Jeff Einstein's comments). I guess I should be grateful for that! I'll be sure to pass your comments on to the party who alerted me to Huon's latest reversion. Again, thanks for your interest in this matter, Jim. You have to date been balanced and fair in your handling of this matter, and your bravery in not hiding behind an anonymous mask is commendable.Sandom (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention J. G. Sandom 

message: I cut stuff, checked sources, and removed the COI tag. Unless anyone has a problem with the quality of the sources, I think we're in good shape. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the statements were irrelevant to Sandom, others (especially when he left Rapp Digital) weren't supported by the given sources. I have fixed that. Huon (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Please discuss your changes in the talk page before you attempt reintroduce them. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the bar of editorial standards for stuff like this is a bit low, so long as we aren't saying anything negative. But here a few issues with the sources... This appears to be a column, no editorial standards. This is an interview, again, no editorial standards. This is some kind of index or a primary source, we'd like a secondary source to establish relevance of the award. You're his daughter or whatever he mentioned earlier? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: As long as you're not saying bad things about Sandom or going off-topic, I'm not overly concerned. Since the previous edit was reverted, I wanted to give you a flavor of how things work and what we look for in terms of sources. If someone reverts you, we'll discuss some more. Otherwise, it looks good, thank you for your patience :) TippyGoomba (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, it looks like you already got reverted. If the reverter doesn't comment, I'll check the sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: At this point, you're on your way to being banned. You need to stop edit warring and address the objections raised in the edit summaries. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate: A source that doesn't mention Sandom cannot be used to support claims on Sandom's business success. At the very best that would be an original synthesis of published sources, something we should not engage in. Similarly, if you want to say that Sandom is "widely credited" with X you'd need a source that explicitly says so. If we just have a source that credits Sandom with X, we should attribute the credit to the source. Huon (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I just left you a warning on your talk page about your editing history at Wikipedia. At this point, I suggest you don't edit the article at all. If you want to suggest changes to the article, do it here. If someone other than you wants to implement them, they may do so. Otherwise, you're heading for a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read WP:SYNTH. They don't mention Sandom by name, so we can't use it in the Sandom article. If you want to put "X did Y" in the article, you need a source that says exactly that. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It's not in the first ref; it's in the second. I could swear I looked for it in the second, too, but either I didn't or I screwed up. My apologies for that. It would be good to establish the pen name more prominently so any source that cites to a book by his pen name won't be questioned. I'm not sure if it should be in the lead as an aka or at the beginning of the author section. You might look at other author articles that use pen names and see how they handle it, although, unfortunately, just because another article handles it in a certain way doesn't make it "correct". Which leads to the next issue. Generally speaking a list of an author's books in an article is a waste of space. One way to handle it is to put an external link to Worldcat in the article, which should have a list. The best thing to do is to discuss the author's books that have been sufficiently noteworthy to attract commentary by secondary sources. That adds some value to the article rather than just a plain list.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Fyi, Sandom made a facebook post about the cyber-bullying he's faced here on May 18th. He also tweeted a link to the facebook post on the same date. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And that post was made before I took a hatchet to the article. The current version is Sandom-approved, as far as I can tell from this response to my edits. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandom is not being bullied, and this is old news. His posts of a month ago constituted, in my opinion, off-wiki canvassing to try to bring in allies to help him shape the Wikipedia article about him to a form that he approves. Those posts were not successful. I have reached out to Sandom to help him understand the norms of how Wikipedia operates. My door is open. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly he's not being bullied, sorry for the confusion. I was trying to be funny :)TippyGoomba (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is cyber-bullying Sandom 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. G. Sandom. 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/20150116164048/http://www.bookreporter.com.asp1-14.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/authors/au-sandom-jg.asp to http://www.bookreporter.com.asp1-14.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/authors/au-sandom-jg.asp
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) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified