Talk:Dave Winer

message: The "writer" section is clearly not worthy of being in the page. It is simply fluff meant to add credibility to the rest of the page. If you look at Steve Wozniak his personal site isn't mentioned, the same is true for other tech company heads.--Irelan12 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: strong objection. Winer was for many years a leading tech journalist. His journalism alone would make him notable in wikipedia terms. In addition, Winer's Scripting News was extremely important in forming weblog style, and in creating the now-familiar role of tech celebrity.  (Please assume good faith and tone down the threats that "any undoing will be considered vandalism". By whom? Let's get along.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mark, you certainly haven't wanted to get along in the past. He isn't a journalist at all. He has a personal blog that details his personal feels. His work for Hotwired is documented. I see no other tech company founders who's personal blog is listed in their article. All of this talk like, "important in forming a style and the father of", simply exists because I pointed out that he didn't invent the things this article claims he did. I have no objection to including a link to Scripting news, but a section about writing because he has a personal site? Come on.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Some examples: Jakob Nielsen is directly comparable. John Gruber occupies a place today much like the one Winer occupied years ago.  On Winer's role in the development of weblog style, see Scott Rosenberg, __Say Anything_ Scott_Rosenberg_(journalist).  MarkBernstein (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of those people's personal sites are listed as links. Only companies are listed in the article.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Analogies with other Wikipedia articles are irrelevant. There is one simple and compelling rationale for this section: Winer's writing is discussed in a non-trivial number of reliable sources, which are duly referenced in the section. ARK (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Writer Section

message: This article is now the subject of a thread on the BLP noticeboard: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Irelan12 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nirelan. ARK (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Block logs: [Irelan12] [Nirelan] -- Irelan12 has been blocked for 48 hours. ARK (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

text: user:Irelan12 has been banned from Wikipedia after a  discussion at the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard. ARK (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP noticeboard 

message: Calling for a little outside attention to the article.  I came here today to find out the role of this individual in some technological advances. The article is rich with detail, but limited in its broader perspective, in part because it relies so thoroughly on news reports (which do not have the persecutive or go deeply enough to be actual best sources for WP historical statements), and then, as well, it relies on substantial material, sourced and unacknowledged, that derives from the title subject. For these reasons, I have called for a technology expert to see if some Winer sources can be replaced with third-party, scholarly, secondary sources, to buttress stated importance of his contributions and innovations.
In course of doing this, an effort was made to begin the process of checking and completing citation to standard, esp. URL-only citations.
As well, I have made more transparent the lack of sourcing of some material to Winer sources (adding  tags to clear autobiographical statements), and as a matter of principle and policy, have removed a variety of external links that were embedded in the text (turning them into formal sources). An inexplicable external link to a blog, of Winer's father, was removed, because it was unclear what this source was intended to convey. (Perhaps the externally linked blog was the blog of the father; regardless, it was not properly placed as a source, and was not a valid source for the fact that the gentleman named was Winer's father.
As well, the general issue is explained in this way, to include the indirect: It is clear that Mr Winer has initiated and participated in many efforts, organizations, and companies. When these organizations and companies produce informational materials about Winer efforts, products, etc. these sources of information are still, inherently under the control of the title subject (while he is at the helm of the effort), and so these are not independent, third-party sources, as called for under WP:VERIFY. Hence, these also do not contribute the perspective that is most needed (and called for via the expert tag), for this article.
Otherwise, in lessor matters, I combined two overly short sections containing related career content categories, made a section title to be "‎Family background and education" as this is more standard for BLP articles, added a "Personal life" section, to end, as per standard for biographies,
Finally, the reason for the "third-party" and BLP refimprove" tags was simply this: there was a complete lack of third-party sourcing in the Early life… section, and most material there was unsourced. And as I scanned elsewhere in the article, I noted that this bad habit of inserting unsourced sentences had begun to occur, in this otherwise well-researched article. 
It is best we keep to standard, and not let the article begin to drift to the addition of stray unsourced statements. People's opinions and stray thoughts are fine, but they are not encyclopedic.
That is all, Press on. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this date