Talk:Peggy Adler

Conflict of interest/autobiography

Here, Bxzooo (talk · contribs), the primary contributor to this article, admitted to being Peggy Adler herself. The article seems to be largely résumé-like, listing a number of activities Adler has engaged in, none of which really seem to establish notability in accordance with WP:Notability (people). I'm not seeing evidence of significant coverage of her either as an author/illustrator or as a police commissioner. Angr (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Angr, Based upon your comments, I have deleted most of the line item entries and put all of those items' reference points into the text. So now the article should no longer look like a resume. The only major list that remains is that with the titles of books and magazine articles that provide proof that "other people have commented significantly on the work (I've) done, in writing, in publications that (I) have no control over." As for my work as a Police Commssioner. We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline. We oversee the entire department and it's budget -- one of the biggest in our town. Last year our police chief of the last 19 years retired after being appointed by President Obama to become the United States Marshal for the State of Connecticut. As a Police Commissioner, I, along with my four colleagues, interviewed and hired a new chief. The chief we chose came from with in the ranks, and so we subsequently promoted members of the department to major, sgt. & corporal, respectively, to backfill newly vacated positions. We also interviewed and hired new cops and sent them to the Academy for training. They are now on the road here in Clinton. At amost 70 years of age, despite all of my work and civic activities, I have lived a very low profile life in a number of small towns here in Connecticut. Most of the people where I live (and have lived) 'til now, have had no idea of what I have done, because I do not normally promote my self. For years, most of my high profile energy was spent single parenting my two daughters, who are now adults, one with children of her own. And now, with Power of Attorney, I am looking after the affairs of my 98 year old Dad - along with all my other responsibilties. I hope that this addresses all of your concerns. Respectfully, Peggy Adler (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo

P.S. If you have the time and inclination -- I respectfully request that you check out my sources. I think that they will establish notability. user/bxzooo Bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

citation format

this section is in response to this diff as well as others like it.

dear all: as stated in WP:CITE: Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it. since there is clearly some disagreement here over the method of citations to be used, with Bxzooo supporting through reversion the position that cite.php formats should not be used, and others, Markvs88 and Killiondude e.g., taking the position through edits and reversions that cite.php should be used, i thought that (a) it would be good to start a conversation here regarding consensus, and (b) to weigh in on the issue by stating that i too would prefer that the citations be left as they are now in the cite.php format. this produces more useful citations, both in the sense that they're easier to read and track down as they appear in the reflist, and in the sense that they're easier to copy/paste to other articles should the need arise. please weigh in if you have an opinion on this issue. (to all three editors i've mentioned here: please forgive me and correct me if i've drawn the wrong conclusion regarding your opinion about citation style from your edits) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I support the cite.php format. I don't think Ms. Adler understands the prevalence and tendency of many Wikipedia articles to use that format. There are numerous advantages toward using these templates and many disadvantages of not using them. Including but not limited to what you mentioned above. Killiondude (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the cite.php version as well. I can't see what Bxzooo thinks is incorrect material. ETA -- oh, now I do. That is a bit of a mess, isn't it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry to be dumb. could you point out what it is that you noticed? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In this diff, there are refs such as Rosenbaum, Ron (1961-04-14). ""I Stole the Head of Prescott Bush! More Scary Skull and Bones Tales" ("New York Observer")" and "Peggy Adler's Listing at" Worldcat.org. Also, in "Irving Adler". Dreamers and Fighters: The NYC Teacher Purges. Adler's name is quoted and linked, instead of the article title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

got it. this is because these cite.php citations were originally autogenerated, i'm guessing? if there is in fact a consensus here for the cite.php versions, maybe the best thing to do is revert back and then fix the ones that are bad by hand? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a few by hand and then it became tedious so I used an autogenerated tool. Sorry if some of the titles were incorrect. Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

it could happen to anyone, and i don't think some wrong titles justify reverting the whole thing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have posted about this below in my reply to Dougweller. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, then. it strikes me that we at least have consensus here regarding the citation style, since Bxzooo hasn't replied although has edited extensively on this page since this particular discussion began. thus i will revert the reversion of the citation style and correct by hand as many of the mistakes that i can find, and if i miss any, well, many eyes and all that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf, I did not reply because I did not know about this until now. What can I say? I think that you were right to remove from the reference section the book titles that are not in the text of the article, as they are listed at the original LOC reference. I do though think that the physical appearance is much more clutttered in the reversion and more confusing than when the text was all blue and the black text not visible. I agree that all extraneous citations should be deleted and am not the one who should decide what goes and what stays. I can, though, answer (some) questions where questions arise. And if "fixing" the remaining ones is too tedious, I'm willing to do it for you. Just let me know when the surgery is complete and what you want me to do from there -- If anything. Best Wishes,Bxzooo 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

P.S. I've read the Wikipedia section "Citing Sources". What they use as an example is pretty close to how I wrote each and every citaton in the original (& reverted) reference section, though I included the source in parenthesis inside the [ ] so that it would be in blue as well. And this is the format which gives a clear, clean, uncluttered appearance. This format seems to be somewhat different from what is currently posted at Peggy Adler. Bxzooo 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

the section of WP:CITE that we are basing this discussion and the change on is found at WP:CITEVAR, specifically the part that says: If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I know -- but that section also says, "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first major contributor to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." This is a tricky one, as I was the first major contributor to the article. Let it suffice to say that the style I chose to use is the one I found at the first section of Wikipedia's "citing sources", as described above. Where do we go from here? Bxzooo 20:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Whelp, if we go by Wikipedia:Autobiography, "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community." ...Does anyone here recall a vote? No, I don't either as the article was written on Peggy's user page. Further, given that the article went to AfD for its spurious content prior version (it's about half the size it was on 21 August 2011, with about half of the citations) I'd say that the prior form is moot as the original editor didn't/doesn't know how to use Wikipedia at anything but a very basic level. Since another editor chose to donate his time and fixed it in another style, I vote that stays. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK Alf, then use the Robbins quote if you think that's the route to go. I just may never understand the concept of verifiability vs truth. But if that's how it works, so be it. BTW, on Sunday, Tuesday and Wedesday nights I have no access to the Internet after 6:30pm. Nor do I the mornings following those nights. Also when I make my monthly trip to VT to help out my 98 year old Dad. For these and other reasons there may be times when my responses may be delayed. Best Wishes.Bxzooo 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

alexandra robbins opinion regarding rosenbaum articles

this is in reference to this diff here

dear all: Bxzooo doesn't think that alexandra robbins's cited opinion of the rosenbaum articles on which peggy adler worked as a researcher is "appropriate" here. my feeling is that since part of adler's notability is that she was a researcher on these articles, opinions about the articles are relevant here. i am going to revert her reversion, but since i won't go beyond one reversion, i thought i'd start asking around here to see if there is some kind of consensus on whether this line belongs in this article. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

update: i decided not to revert at this point, since Bxzooo is reverting a bunch of other stuff without discussion, so it seems that there would be little point other than to start an edit war. perhaps someone more versed in the ways of the wiki can provide some advice? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPN might be the way to go. I've never used it myself, but a quick skim of the header seems to indicate that this situation fits its scope. Aid from that noticeboard might be helpful. Killiondude (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

that looks like a venue of last resort. i think right now maybe is better to wait and see if people chime in here. my feeling is that since the rosenbaum articles are presented as part of adler's accomplishments, it's reasonable to include opinions about those articles from reliable third-party sources, but if no one else agrees or cares, i will step aside. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, this is copied from User_talk:Bxzooo#your_reversions_of_Peggy_Adler in response to a note i left notifying the editor of this discussion:

Dear alf.laylah.wa.laylah So sorry if I did something the wrong way. I am on an upward learning curve and am perfectly happy to participate in the discussion. Since Robbins was inserted without dsicussion, I thought that it was OK to revert it -- with the reason why. Again, so sorry if this was incorrect. The reason I feel that the Alexandra Robbins insertion seemed inapporpriate at Peggy Adler is because Adler has no knowledge of Robbins other than a problem that arose between Robbins and Rosenbaum when Robbins' book was in the pre-publication stage. Following review copies being sent to the major newspapers, one contacted Rosenbaum to alert him to some rather nasty references by Robbins about Rosenbaum. In particular about the filming of Skull and Bones' outdoor segment of their rituals, which Rosenbaum had written about and was prominently aired by Peter Jennings on "ABC World News Tonight" and subsequently by "60 Minutes". As I recall, Rosenbaum got the worst of Robbins nasty words retracted by legal means. She claimed that what was taped was a "set up" to make Rosenbaum look like a fool. But this could not have been the case, because the same rituals were audio taped the year before and were fairly similar -- and Rosenbaum was nowhere involved in that recording. I can go into more detail if you like. In short, though, this is why I feel that the Robbins reference is more approprioate at Ron Rosenbaum's page than at Adler's. If the reference is placed there, then perhaps a link can be made from Rosenbaum's page to Adler's. Regards, User:Bxzooo 01:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

anyway, i still think that a reference to a reliable source concerning the nature of the articles is relevant here. it's not important to this discussion whether or not it's relevant at Ron Rosenbaum (which by the way doesn't mention the articles at all). obviously robbins's characterization of rosenbaum's articles was not retracted by any means, since it's not a statement of fact and it's in the paperback edition (where i read it). my feeling is that if the articles are worth mentioning here, and i'm not so sure that they are because they look to be primary sources on the subject of peggy adler, then third-party discussion by reliable sources of the articles is worth mentioning. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And copied from my page:

Hi Doug, Maybe you can explain to me why after I spent all morning correcting my reference section and other errata, without making any changes to content, someone came in and put the reference section back the way it looked, previously. Every save I made had an expanation. And if you revert to what I did, you will see a "cleaner" looking reference section. Also, Alf has added a reference to Alexandra Robbins, in my reference section. Does this really belong here? Or at Ron Rosenbaums's page? It seems inappropriate for it to be on my page. Regards, Peggy Adler user=Bxzooo 11:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

I asked the editor who reverted why he reverted as vandalism, and his reply is at [1], Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

...and I stand-by my comments. Yes, a few of the citations were incorrectly edited as discussed... but instead of fixing them in their correct format or (failing that) asking for help or (failing that!) alerting the editor in question... she changes the style and then complains to an admin after being reverted instead of asking me why directly. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no reason to think she complained to me due to my status as an Admin, it's much more likely it's due to a lengthy email correspondence I had with her before the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User page

Hi, I've restored your user page. I'd be inclined to make it less like an article page — you don't need refs etc on your user page, and you reduce the amount of text. Or you could just replace with a few sentences

You seem to be having trouble signing. Just copy this ~~~~ and the four tildes will convert when you save to complete your name, talk page and time of message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Alexandra Robbins reference

Hi Alf, alf.laylah.wa.laylah(talk) would it simplify matters if the reference to the Rosenbaum article about the video taping of the Skull & Bones rituals on tap night were not mentioned at all in the Peggy Adler article? Then there would be no need to put the Robbins data in Adler's reference section. BTW, if you want to know more about the actual sequence of these events, I would be willing to share them in an e-mail, but do not want to use the talk space for any more lengthy dialogue than is necesary. Let it suffice to say, at this venue -- I have the 2000 audio recording and am in possession of the original, 2001 video tapes following their use by "60 Minutes". Best Wishes, Bxzooo 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

well, it's complicated. i suppose that i think that in one sense neither rosenbaum article should be mentioned in this article, because neither of them is a secondary source that discusses peggy adler (i realize that she's mentioned, but only as a researcher, and not as the subject of anything therein). if you'd like to take both of them out, i won't put them back in and there'd be no need to mention the robbins quote. on the other hand, it seems to me that the articles do mention peggy adler, and serve to show her involvement in a minor but interesting episode in the history of the public relations of yale university secret societies, so that maybe they should be left in. in this case i think it would be appropriate to have a mention of the robbins evaluation of the articles. since such a thing would need to be cited to a reference, of course, the book would show up in the references. i'm not sure exactly what it is that you're objecting to. do you not want the robbins book in the references for some reason, since you keep mentioning the fact that it shows up there? also, thanks for your kind offer to tell more about the skull and bones stuff, but i'm only interested in improving this article right now, and i don't see how anything you could tell me by email would help us to do that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess this goes back to what I consider credibility. Robbins reference to Rosenbaum has no basis for authenticity. It is merely based upon her own elitist view as a memebr of one of Yale's other secret societies and the word of a supposed bonesman who used some rather vulgar language in his expalanation to her. And this she took as gospel. Robbins never tried to learn the history of the video taping by tracing the "caper" back to its original source -- namely Adler. Robbins has never even tried to contact Adler to see if Rosenbaum's writings were accurate or not. Certainly, Robbins account would never have been accepted by her word alone at the best of newspapers. Their fact checkers and lawyers would have demanded more than supposition, inuendo and heresay. Thus I do not feel that an encyclopedia should give credibily to an entity that has not authenticated its source information. Hope this helps to explain my reasoning. And thanx for listening. Bxzooo 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

Okay, I need to step in here and point out that this is WAY out of the bounds of acceptability per Neutral point of view. Peggy, you are not a neutral party and I am asking you right now to stop trying to own this article. Please also read Verifiability, not truth in regards as to why what you are trying to do is wrong. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88, I do not know why you are so angry. I was merely answering Alf's question.Bxzooo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

If you read anger in my posts, you need to change up your own filter. Text is an imperfect medium, and there isn't any anger directed at you. However, if you're going to take exception to being asked to behave like every other editor... then I'd say that's a problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bxzooo, i don't feel that you've addressed my question. regardless of what you think about robbins or her credibility based on your personal experience, the fact remains that she has a book published by a legitimate publisher that discusses the articles that adler worked on. your personal theories about her motivations or reliability based on your personal knowledge of or involvement in any of these issues is not relevant to this discussion. if you can find reliable sources to back up what you're asserting then i would suggest that we put in robbins's evaluation of the articles along with material from such sources, if they exist, evaluating robbins's evaluation. also, i'm not sure why you keep bringing up the videotaping of the skull and bones ritual. the robbins statement about the rosenbaum articles that i quoted is in an entirely different context. on another note, i too wish that you'd read the wikipedia policies that Markvs88 suggested and try to edit in accordance with them. it seems to me to that if you could try to maintain some distance from the content of this article, we'd all be a lot happier. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not jut delete all the Skull & Bones references from the text and thus, the reference section.Bxzooo 18:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

i'm sorry, do you have a reason for wanting the rosenbaum material removed? it seems to me that if the rosenbaum material isn't relevant to adler's history, then the snepp material isn't relevant either, since in both cases, adler is mentioned primarily as a researcher. i'm willing to grant that adler's career as a researcher is worth mentioning, but i don't see that it improves the article to remove mentions of adler's work, especially if the sole reason for removing the material is because a reliable third-party source is critical of the articles in which adler's work is mentioned. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, Then keep it/them. Whatever you thinks best. The Snepp piece is actually more relevant than the Rosenbaum one, as it has do with historic events more important than a college secret society. It deals with who discovered the October Surprise was a hoax and how. Bxzooo 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

well, if we're keeping them, and i think that that's fine, what do you think about including the robbins quote about the rosenbaum articles? i don't see that you've really addressed that question other than by asserting that robbins isn't reliable, which she is as we measure it here at wikipedia: WP:SOURCES. also, keep in mind that we're looking for verifiability, not truth (per WP:VERIFY). by that measure, and i and others think it's a good one, it seems to me that it's reasonable to include the robbins quote. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK Alf, then use the Robbins quote if you think that's the route to go. I just may never understand the concept of verifiability vs truth. But if that's how it works, so be it. BTW, on Sunday, Tuesday and Wedesday nights I have no access to the Internet after 6:30pm. Nor do I the mornings following those nights. Also when I make my monthly trip to VT to help out my 98 year old Dad. For these and other reasons there may be times when my responses may be delayed. Best Wishes.Bxzooo 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

Peggy: We don't care. Really, we really, really do not care about when you are online or what you had for breakfast. This is not Twitter or Facebook, and (again) you do not wp:own this article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Calm Down Mark. To begin with, I do not twitter and rarely use FB. The only reason I included this info is because one or another of you mentioned, earlier, that that there had been no respone from me regarding some posting. So I felt it appropriate to let you know that due to my schedule, I do not always have access to the Internet. And when I do, I do not always have the time. Where Alf's and others comments have been polite and constructive, I have found most of yours to be cruel, mean-spirited and destructive. I have never claimed to own my bio or anything else. Though you seem to have yourself. [[User:Bxzooo|Bxzooo 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)]

Peggy, you seem to have an issue with projecting your emotions onto me for some reason. Here, I'm just saying that we really dont care. I call it like I see it, and am wholly neutral. However, because your behaviors are so far outside the realm of other editors, I understand why you don't understand that I'm trying to help make this article encyclopedic. There is a limit to how much "benefit of the doubt" one gets. alf.laylah.wa.laylah has taken a lot of time to try to improve this article, and I spent no small amound while it was in AfD. For all of that, you are very persistent in trying to "guide" it, against everything Wikipedia stands for (see Wikipedia:Advocacy#Defenses, points 1 & 2).

I'm calling you out on it. If you don't like it, that's your business, but you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Civility#Co-operation_and_civility (or even Wikipedia:No personal attacks to understand what actual incivility is. I've never attacked you, though I fully admin in trying to get you to not treat Wikipedia like social media. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Peggy, people have spent a lot of time trying to help you, in fact I can't remember when people spent this much time on this sort of problem. If someone gets a bit impatient with you please understand that you are being given every bit of leeway and then some. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I can see that. And most of you have been great and as you can see from my dialogue with Alf, I concur with almost all of what he has (constructively) said. I just do not think that some of the barbs that have been launched from elsewhere are helpful, useful or constructive. As I have said in the past - I think that if we work together, constructively, we can all learn something from the experience. I know that I do not own the bio. But I do know where the verifications can be found and am willing to help and support the editors in any/every way if they will just allow me.Bxzooo 15:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

...and I have been constructively trying to get you to behave like a Wikipeida editor and not get banned. More than a few would have reported you to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard long ago. If you read my posts as barbs... if you want to project how you read things onto me that's your business, but I'm fully following wp:bite and am trying to *help* you... and you've gone through a lot of rope, as Dougweller (thanks!) has mentioned. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

dreamers and fighters reference

here's the diff that this section is about.

as i was cleaning up the citations, i decided to remove this one. here are my reasons:

1. it is only cited to support that peggy adler is the daughter of irving adler. this seems to me to be a fact which does not need to be cited to something.
2. it is only a reliable source at second hand, since it is the website of a documentary which has published an excerpt from a book by irving adler. if the book by irving adler needs to be cited for something, i believe it would be better to just cite the book itself, instead of this website.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dreamers and Fighters" includes a photo of Adler as a child, picketing a dinner at the Waldorf Astoria for the then Superintendent of Schools, William Jansen. That was the primary reason for its inclusion. If this is a mistaken reason, then removal is understandable. Bxzooo 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

P.S. Actually, the text about Irving Adler is not from any book by him. According to the "fighters and Dreamers" website, it is actually edited and excerpted from "Something About the Author", Autobiography Series (1993) Vol. 15 Gale Research, Inc. Just thought I'd add this correction so that there is no long term misinterpretation of the material's source. Bxzooo 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

stray citation to your ears

here is the diff that this is about.

i removed a stray citation to the loc record for a book called your ears, because this book is not mentioned in the text, and so doesn't need to be cited. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

sole author document

i am removing this: Document declaring Peggy Adler as sole author filed @ the Library of Congress as a reference because i can't see anything that it's supporting. if the point is that peggy adler wrote these books, i don't think that it's disputable. the inclusion of this document strikes me as Wikipedia:Citation overkill. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

citations in authorship section

here is the diff that this part of this section is about.

i am going to remove the citations for all most of the books in this section. here is my reasoning:

1. the multitude of footnotes makes the section hard to read. see Wikipedia:Citation overkill.
2. adler's authorship of all these books is a matter of fact and not subject to dispute.
3. none of the books mentioned in the references are actually mentioned in the text.
4. not all of the claims to authorship in this section are backed by footnotes, so i see no reason why any of them ought to be.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Again Alf, The reason for the notarized authorship document, now on file at the LOC, is because both John Day and Franklin Watts put Irving Adler's name on the three such cited books as co-author, even though he never was the author of any of them. They did it merely for marketing purposes due to his notariety as a mathematician. Thus, the document is to ascertain that Peggy Adler's claim to sole authorship of these three titles is true/accurate. Bxzooo 17:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

ah, i see the problem. i'm not sure what to do about it, exactly. the trouble is that the sole authorship document strikes me as a primary source for this information, which isn't appropriate for inclusion. on the other hand, the loc records do indicate irving adler as the author of the books. i'm kind of at a loss, but will think about it. others? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been uploaded to Wikimedia and is on file at the LOC, as is witnessed by the bar code, could there be a link to it there (at Wikimedia). Perhaps this is an example of an entry that might need a legal document as verification. What do you think? Bxzooo 18:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

here is the diff that this part of this section is about:

also, i am going to remove one citation to namebase; that is the one to peggy adler. if the point of the citation is to support the fact that adler went by the name robohm at some point, then only the namebase page of robohm, which says "see adler", is necessary to support this. on the other hand, i think that, as a matter of fact, it probably doesn't need supporting, but i don't care that much, so i'm just going to leave that one in. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

community involvement section references

for some reason i can't make the links to clintonct.org work, although the ones to clintonct.com work fine for me. sarek says that the clintonct.org ones work, so this is some local problem i'm having. thus i'm going to leave the references in this section to someone else for now, as i'm getting a little burnt on this task. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf, I think that this may be because of web work and up dates due to the severity of Hurricane Irene in the town. Bxzooo 18:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

frontline appearance

i would like to remove this phrase and its associated reference, as the cited reference does not support the statement cited to it:

and she was interviewed by PBS' "Frontline"

but, for obvious reasons, i thought it would be best to seek input here before acting. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

References

I don't have a problem with that citation, unless there's some reason to believe that she didn't actually appear on the episode of Frontline that that URL refers to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

you're right, i can see that now. there's no reason to doubt it. it's just disconcerting to find that a reference doesn't support the statement cited to it, but i can't think of any better way than what we have to indicate the episode of frontline involved. i'll drop it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If it would help, there is a transcript of the entire episode I can upload which contains the interview -- proving that it did take place. The interview is also the subject matter in a chapter of Robert Parry's book "Trick or Treason" on pages 227-232. Bxzooo 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

no need to upload transcripts. i noticed parry's book mentioned in the text. i don't have a copy of it, and the view of it from google books is too restrictive to settle the question, but if it does indeed discuss adler's appearance on frontline, i'd be happier to see a citation to that than to a website describing the frontline episode which does not mention adler. the book probably should be used as an inline citation rather than being mentioned in the text, since from what you say about it, it's not about adler, but has a section that is about adler. here is a citation in the cite.php format, which might be helpful (you can get the actual template out of an edit window, i'm not sure right now how to make it appear literally):

Parry, Robert (September 1993). Trick or treason: the October surprise mystery. Sheridan Square Press. pp. 227–232. ISBN 978-1-879823-08-2. Retrieved 7 September 2011.

for further reference, you can make these from google books using this tool, which i find quite useful. also, i'm happy enough leaving it as it is for now, although i'll get the parry book from the library and see if i can propose something that i'm happier with. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that putting in an ISBN number does not lead you to the book at the LOC or anywhere else? Only to the definition of ISBN at Wikipedia. If that's all it's supposed to do, then no harm done. Otherwise, shouldn't each book referenced have a link to its page at the LOC which would give the reader all necessary info including the ISBN? Bxzooo 22:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

no, if you click on the letters isbn, it takes you to the wikipedia article on isbns, but if you click on the number itself, it takes you to a page with every library in worldcat, organized geographically, that has the book (including the loc), as well as to all major online booksellers in case you want to buy the book. it makes it extremely easy to locate books if the isbn is included as part of the proper format. the loc entry isn't much good to anyone but congressmen, since their books don't circulate for anyone else. anyway, it would be far better to cite all of adler's books in the ordinary way, to include isbns for those that were published after isbns came into use (1966?), but i'm not up for doing it right now. maybe soon. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf, I tried that months ago and no link(s) appeared/connected. So I removed all the ISBNs from the bio. I'll try again. Anyway, before you read Parry's book do a Google search for 'Peggy Adler Hartford Courant' and locate "Researcher critical of PBS 'Frontline' Segement" dated 4/14/1992. And then bear the content of what transpired in mind when you read the relevant pages in his book. And while doing so know that 1) I never wrote a children's fiction book in my life. Only educational puzzle books for grades 4-7; and 2) I NEVER moved in with the Brennekes. Only slept on their couch for the week it took to pack up 70 cartons of his 'documents' to then drive from Oregon back to CT to co-author his 'autobiography'. Personal descriptions aside, most, though not all the rest of what he wrote, is fairly accurate. Happy reading! Bxzooo 15:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Musst have been due to a typo in my signature. I fixed it. Bxzooo 15:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Alf, Thanx for pointing out how to link the ISBN to where the books can be found. In fact when I followed the link for 'The Second Adler Book of Puzzles and Riddles' at Google, it's database attributed it to a David Karp. I though I'd straightened this out with them years ago! So I've tried to correct their error again, today. BTW, further links did eventually lead to me as author/illustrator. I really have appreciated all your assistance and am greatful for your input. Once again, THANX!! Bxzooo 21:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)

Thanx! I like the way the article now reads

For whatever it's worth -- I really like the editing that simplified the article without losing content. Thanx! Perhaps, someday you will let me have a hand in the format of whatever reference points remain. I guess it's the artist and perfectionist in me. But in all, those of you that have edited and listened, have done a fine job. And for that I am grateful. Regards, Bxzooo 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

ok, then what's up with your changes to the citation style? what you're doing doesn't seem in the least better. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

please, please, if you're going to change citation style randomly away from the wp standard that was discussed and agreed on, can you talk about it on the article's talk page first? this is making people crazy. what you're changing them to does not seem better, and it's weirdly nonstandard. how is there a benefit to this? you might answer on the article's talk page so that everyone can participate. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf, I posted my response to you at "talk" as you requested, above. But now I see your response here, at 'discussion'. So I've copied what I posted at "talk" and pasted it here in case you have not read it yet:

"Hi Alf, I only did what I thought Jim Bleak suggested I could try. And I only tried it on the 1st reference for feed back. Following is the converstion I had with Jim before I made that update: "If the town reports exist as paper as well, you don't need a retrieval date. It's only needed for stuff that exists on the web and not in real life. You can remove the links where they aren't needed. "Accessed on... " is an acceptable alternative to retrieval. You don't need LoC, they are never used since isbn is enough and more international Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Thanx Jim, Since I now know it's OK with you, I'll delete the retrieved at the town annual reports and revise the wording at the others, where it seems appropriate. If I screw it up, please do let me know!! Bxzooo 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk) Jim, I did the first reference point and am much happier with the wording and the overall appearance of the reference, itself, than what was there before. But I will not revise any others unless you say this format is OK. Bxzooo 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)"

So all I did was what was suggested. I'm sorry if it's creating a problem. There are many people giving me instructions. How do I know whose to follow? Please advise!!! Bxzooo 10:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bxzooo 15:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

maybe you could try editing some articles on some topic that isn't so personally important to you to try to get an idea of how the process works, and then you won't need to ask for instructions so much? just a suggestion. however, since a bunch of editors discussed the citation style and reached a rough consensus, it feels pretty uncollegial of you to keep messing with it without seeking a new consensus with reasons on the article talk page. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I know how the process works and did not ask for instruction from Jim Bleak on this. I asked him an informational question about style and he replied. I then did, as he suggested, as is evidenced by the subsequent conversaton I had with him (which I have now left in two places for you to read.) And that is why I only did one, awaiting input/response. None to date. So I'll still wait to hear from him, since he's the one who gave me the go-ahead to make the changes. Thus, I'm not "messing" with ANYTHING as you put it. I did what was suggested and I repeat -- rather than do them all, I did one -- and am awaiting Jim Bleak's independent, hopefully at this point, unbiased response! And BTW, R U aware of the many typos and errors, including dates, these editors have left behind? I've already repaired some ..... Bxzooo 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)

The Isaacson Affair

Hi Alf,

Just thought I’d give you some additional research material regarding the Isaacson affair in order to more easily put it into perspective. I will leave what transpires after you read this material to you and the other editors. And BTW, your links to the two “New Haven Register” articles on the subject, in the Peggy Adler article, are not currently connected to their sources at the Internet.

If I can find third party sources for the following paragraph, I will let you know. The rest of what I am sending, after the following paragraph, does have links, as you will see, to third party sources.

The Board of Ethics, at the time the complaint was filed against Arthur Isaacson, was comprised of three members – two Republicans and one Democrat -- any or all of whom could be appointed or elected Town Board or Commission members, as well as being members of either the Democratic Town Committee (DTC) or the Republican Town Committee (RTC). All three appointees were selected by the DTC & RTC. And one of the RTC/Board of Ethics members had just nominated Arthur Isaacson to be their party’s candidate for the office of First Selectman immediately prior to the time the complaint was filed. She and the other Republican voted not to investigate this ethics complaint. So Isaacson was not really cleared. The complaint was dismissed. And Town Counsel and the AG they both to sent it back to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and the wording in the then Ethics Ordinance. The Board of Selectmen responded by what follows and is available with sourcing found on the Internet, for which I have provided the links.

03/17/2005, “Clinton Selectman prevails in Conflict of Interest Complaint” by Stan Fisher, NH Register.

05/11/2005 Board of Selectmen meeting: > “Ad-Hoc Ethics Committee - Discussion: On a motion by Donovan, seconded by Mezzetti, Barbara Webb and Hubert Adams were appointed to a new Code of Ethics Review Committee. The present Code was enacted in 1971, confirmed in 1977 and re-confirmed in 1989. The Selectmen have agreed that it should be reviewed and possibly updated, and plan to appoint a total of five members to this Committee. Three others have been contacted but were unable to attend this meeting this evening. A meeting will be convened when all are available. Webb and Adams were sworn in by First Selectman McCusker at 7:15 p.m.” > “Selectman's Report: Isaacson noted that on March 23, 2005 a decision of the Board of Ethics concerning him was to have been given to Town Attorney John Bennet for his review and advice. To date there has been no reply.” > “A reply has not yet been received from the town attorney re a question from Isaacson in connection with a recent charge of conflict of interest.” (Source: http://clintonct.com/selectmenminutes.html )

06/25/2005, “Clinton Town Attorney Upholds Power of Ethics Board” by Stan Fisher, “NH Register”

11/15/2006, New Ethics Ordinance enacted by BOS

01/05/2007, New Ethics Ordinance effective on 1/5/2007

§51-6. Board of Ethics. A. There shall be a Board of Ethics consisting of five regular members. The members shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen to serve five-year terms in accordance with §§ 2-3 and 7-8 of the Town of Clinton Charter. The terms are to be staggered and no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms. Any member having served two consecutive terms shall be ineligible for reappointment to the Board for a period of two years. B. All members shall be electors of the municipality. No member shall hold or campaign for any public office, be a member of a political Town committee or serve as a member of any other municipal agency, commission or board. A person will not be disqualified from serving on the Board if he/she has a member of his/her immediate family employed by the Town or the Clinton Board of Education. (Source: http://www.ecode360.com/CL2816?needHash=true )

The best thing that came out of the complaint is that the Town of Clinton has a much better Ethics Ordinance than before and the criteria for membership and the selection of the Commission members is no longer subject to partiality, partisanship and influence peddling.

Best Wishes, Bxzooo 20:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)(talk)

photo

Is there a picture available that has not been digitally altered? It looks like someone just removed part of the background, but it sticks out very strongly. a13ean (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo has not been altered in any way. It is merely a close-up & enlarged portion of a photo that originally had three people and two were cut out. Bxzooo 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Cookiehead

This article was totally accepted by the Editors ages ago. And the only recent edits, which were made in December, were to bring some recently introduced references, made by another editor, into the proper Wikipedia format -- as there were some that 1) mis-stated the Newspaper headline bring cited; 2) had no link on the Internet, to the article being cited, as is required; and 3) mis-stated the & misquoted the content of the article(s) being cited.Bxzooo 19:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Following is what User Cookiehead has to say about him/herself: "I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me"; and 2) I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned." So he/she is merely trying to rack up as many edits as possible with no regard to content. This is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I will not quote, here, the remainder of what he/she has to say about him/herself. If you are interested, you can go to Cookihead's user page. Bxzooo 20:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Community Involvement

Have added a notability tag to this section as it is not clear if a dispute in 2005 with the Town of Clinton Ethics Board has any particular interest or relevance to anyone residing outside the municipal boundaries of said town ---or those inside for that matter.Mannanan51 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

Hi Mannanan, I've been spending so much time commuting back and forth between the State of Conecticut and the State of Vermont, looking after my 99 year old Dad who lives in assisted living in Vermont, that I had not originally noticed your posting here at "talk". Had I, I would have responded, here, right away -- rather than merely reversing your post. And for that I apologize! Anyway -- Had you posted this back in late October 2011, following the original posting of this material by Alf.laylah.wa.layla I would have been in total agreement with you. For I had no idea why he would have chosen this to add to my bio other than to try to show me in a negative light. For if you go back to his original posting of October 24th, there are no references as to: 1) why I filed the conflict of interest complaint and 2) that due to conflict of interest within the then Ethics Board, a new Ethics Ordinance was created and implemented by the Town of Clinton. And even thought this is all documented on the Internet, "Alf" neglected to mention this in his posting. And since I did not feel it was appropraite for me to remove what he had posted, I added this information to it -- by quoting, citing & providing the source materials. Then, I did add to it again, when the new ordinance found two attorneys on our Planning and Zoning Commission guilty of unethical behavior. And although I live in a town of a mere 13,000, the "New Haven Register" dedicated a lengthy editorial to the findings of our Board of Ethics (see the link @ my bio) and the fact that these two elected P&Z women refuse to resign (Connecticut has no method of recall for eleceted officials). So although I did not think the original October 24, 2011 posting was notable enough to be posted at my bio, perhaps it has now come full circle -- as the only daily newspaper for the City of New Haven(home of Yale University) felt it worthy of an editorial. Anyway -- if you still think the Isaacson/Ethics section is not notable, then please feel free to reverse/delete it from my bio, bringing it back to the way it was before the abovementioned changes were made in October of last year. I just hope that you don't not want to delete my entire bio due to this entry. Bxzooo 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)(talk)

P.S. On October 23, 2011, the day before the segment we are discussing was inserted, someone calling himself "TomBrennan06413" (06413 being my zip code)posted libelous material at my bio, which the editors subsequetly removed. The toll, I guess, for being active and outspoken in a small, polarized community. So I have probably been too sensative about postings since that date. And for that, I apologize, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign the P.S. Bxzooo 17:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC) (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peggy Adler. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2005/03/17/import/14164088.txt
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2005/06/25/import/14755712.txt
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clintonct.org/docs/ethics/2012-03-06%20Decision%20Ethics.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928223717/http://clintonct.com/2004Report.pdf to http://clintonct.com/2004Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928223650/http://clintonct.com/charterminutes.html to http://clintonct.com/charterminutes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)