Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.


DYK nomination

On March 2, 2013, DYK. I did not make this nomination. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit and issues

Dear Fellow Editors, IP editors are removing and changing text. This text is supported by the references following the text. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible close paraphrasing

I ran this article through Earwig's copyvio detector, which gave back several sources with wording very close to this article. Here are some of the articles:

I believe this article needs to be checked for close paraphrasing of these sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran Earwig's copyvio detector and you must have done a good edit job to reduce the similarity because I got this. also, which way was the coping. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x1674229145/UC-grad-now-with-SEC-to-speak-at-college 41.50% http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/27/sec-staffers-took-laptops-with-critical-market-info-to-hacker-conference/#ixzz2bWTsIhUb 40.10% http://onlinemba.umd.edu/resources/faculty/david-weber/ 33.80% http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-16/business/chi-nyse-hires-former-homeland-security-chief-20121116_1_general-jon-rymer-black-hat-convention-sec-staffers 33.30% http://www.umuc.edu/business/about/faculty.cfm 29.10% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/david-kotz-conflict-of-interest_n_1944205.html 27.50% http://www.cic.edu/Programs-and-Services/Programs/Woodrow-Wilson-Visiting-Fellows/Pages/David-P.-Weber.aspx 22.50% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/sec-watchdog-cites-report-as-proof-he-s-not-a-security-threat.html 17.40% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/sec-sued-mf-global-jpmorgan-suspended-compliance.html 14.50% http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-sec-watchdog-idUSBRE90O10120130125 14.50% http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/sec-settles-whistleblower-case-with-580000/2013/06/11/89a66fde-d2cf-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html 13.80% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/david-weber-sec_n_1508161.html 13.80% http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1557&Itemid=102 10.70% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/sec-said-to-back-hire-of-u-s-capitol-police-inspector-general.html 9.10% http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/04/us-sec-consultants-idUSBRE9030V320130104 9.10% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/davir-weber-lawsuit_n_2140452.html 9.10% http://mobile.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSBRE9030V320130104 9.10% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/sec-pays-580-000-over-ex-investigator-s-firing-claims.html 8.30% http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty-research/academic-departments/accounting-information-assurance/faculty/faculty-list/adjunct 8.30% http://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/09/02/sec-settles-with-whistleblower-employee-for-580k/ 6.50% http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/sec-rocked-by-lurid-sex-and-corruption-lawsuit-20121119 5.70% http://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/2012/11/26/secs-schapiro-resigns-after-whistleblower-suit--a-365129.html?lifehealth 5.70% http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/2015/08/articles/news/senators-honor-whistleblowers-at-first-congressional-celebration-of-national-whistleblower-day/ 4.80% http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/sex-corruption-rampant-us-securities-exchange-commission-080639318.html?.b=world&.ts=1353399868&.intl=IN&.lang=en-in&.ysid=v97LAJXTEVPPa9D6_4R9Mkz8 4.80% http://www.senseoncents.com/2014/07/whistleblower-appreciation-day-my-top-5/ 3.80% http://www.law360.com/securities/articles/448631/sec-settles-ex-official-s-wrongful-termination-suit- 3.80% http://www.businessownersnetworking.com/Julie_Goodwin_Weber.html 3.80% http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulations/Employee-Standards-of-Conduct/Employee-Standards-of-Conduct/ 2.90% http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/921557/000115752311007107/a50100954ex10_1.htm 2.00% http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2013/07/18/Watchdog-Finds-SEC-Did-Not-Properly-Vet-Contractors.aspx 2.00% http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/matt-taibbi-lurid-sex-and-corruption-scandal-sec 1.00% http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/results.cfm 1.00% http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9260405/Top-SEC-investigator-David-Weber-put-on-leave-over-gun-comments.html 1.00% http://www.40actblog.com/2012/12/sec-general-counsel-to-resign-from-the-sec.html 1.00% http://ntst.umd.edu/soc/ 1.00% https://ntst.umd.edu/soc/ 1.00% http://www.md.ngb.army.mil/absolutenm/templates/?a=756&z=41 1.00% http://goodwinweberlaw.com/attorneys/david-p-weber/ 0.00% http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323949904578536001278977258.html 0.00% http://www.sec-oig.gov/Reports/Semiannual/2012/OIG_SAR_Spring2012.pdf 0.00% http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/david-paul-weber-1253685 0.00% http://www.courts.state.md.us/cgi-bin/cstf.pl?inputname=weber&firstname=david&submit=Submit 0.00% http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/sec-inspector-general-kotz-quits-for-private-investigation-firm.html 0.00% http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-09/sec-fires-investigator-who-alleged-ethics-lapses-lawyer-says 0.00% http://www.complianceweek.com/at-the-sec-investigations-about-investigators-who-investigate-other-investigators/article/241463/ 0.00% https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_files/finalSEC12UIHQ0063GC37SI_SEC-OIG_A.pdf.pdf 0.00% http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-14/senator-presses-sec-over-decision-to-put-investigator-on-leave 0.00% http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_96/jon-rymer-fdic-sec-inspector-general-1049412-1.html 0.00% http://www.sec-oig.gov/Reports/OOI/2012/OIG-557.pdf 0.00% http://mddf.maryland.gov/index.aspx 0.00% https://www.facebook.com/pages/70th-Regiment-LDR-Regional-Training-Institute/324433367578062 0.00% https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-p-weber/73/9b1/60 0.00% http://mddf.maryland.gov/blogpost.aspx?id=24 0.00% http://www.academicapparel.com/caps/cum-laude.html 0.00% http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cum%20laude 0.00% http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/cum-laude.html 0.00% http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/subsequently 0.00% http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/subsequently 0.00% http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subsequently 0.00%

30-40% isn't good. It just means that this article isn't a blatant copy/paste of the content from those other sources. There's still a pretty clear close paraphrasing issue, which isn't so much a problem of copyright but plagiarism. Earwig's Copyvio Tool is a help because it demonstrates that there are blocks of text that are simply cribbed from other sources, and further looking makes it clear that the citations to those sources are inadequate.
And frankly speaking, from a Wikipedia perspective, when the sources from which blocks of text are being cribbed are academic or professional bios published by someone affiliated with the subject, it raises people's hackles around here. In short, we need to ensure that this article is objectively written (this goes to the autobiography warning at the top of the page). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Someone tagged a ref from the United States Postal Service (USPS) as "non-primary source needed". In the text, the USPS is a third party to a complaint by Weber between the SEC. I found another third party cite to explain: "The USPS inspector general had been asked in May to conduct the investigation into Kotz, after the SEC determined that it needed an independent investigator to probe allegations of misconduct." per http://www.law360.com/articles/448631/sec-settles-ex-official-s-wrongful-termination-suit

Someone tagged a ref from The Rolling Stone Magazine as "non-primary source needed". In the text, The Rolling Stone Magazine is a third party to a complaint by Weber between the SEC. I found another third party cite to explain: "Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine reports that Weber came forward with evidence that the SEC, charged with investigating financial crimes, was negligent in its investigation of these two individuals. at http://www.mintpressnews.com/5-whistleblowers-you-might-not-have-heard-of/167144/

This seems to explain why the Post Office Inspector General and The Rolling Stone Magazine were involved as third parties. Best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerald, the problem with those sources is not that they appear to be first-party sources, but that they're primary sources. See WP:PSTS. The USPS OIG investigatory document, for instance, is just that... an investigation report. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources, especially for potentially controversial claims. Additionally, the Rolling Stone links were not only primary sources, but in fact first-party sources: Rolling Stone is rehosting Weber's civil complaint, and that's the document being linked where the Rolling Stone refs are tagged with "non-primary source needed." A civil complaint is just not enough to support any significant claim in a Wikipedia article because, by definition, the factual claims in a civil complaint are contentious. Secondary sources are strongly preferred. But it looks like you're making progress in fixing this problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement, Mendaliv. I will continue to work on it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David P. Weber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U Maryland

I changed wording to match the University of Maryland sources. See https://ccjs.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Weber/David ("lecturer") and https://ccjs.umd.edu/landing/About%20Us ("adjunct faculty"). Not "professor" and "faculty" like for example https://ccjs.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Dugan/Laura; https://ccjs.umd.edu/landing/About%20Us . Text of articles must match sources. E goldstein (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic ranks in the United States. E goldstein (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weber may teach a class for CCJS, but he is a Smith School faculty member. The University of Maryland has very specific rules for titles, and for those teaching in professional degree programs (ie, Accounting, Law, others that require licensure, the title is professional track faculty. PTK faculty titles in the instructional series are called lecturers. https://pdc-svpaap1.umd.edu/policies/ntt_titles.html. This policy first started in 2015, and can be read about extensively here: https://faculty.umd.edu/appointment/new-titles.html JackinMD (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UMD as source

A person's employer is not considered to be an third party source independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Examples. It is fine for things like education or classes taught or other basic facts (even if it all probably came from the subject himself) but not everything. In this case it is hard to tell what to make of a nomination for an award that can be made by sending an e-mail, http://aaahq.org/FIA/Calls , and just because the employer mentions it that's not enough to repeat it, verbatim, here. If it's an important and notable award then someone will report on the winner. E goldstein (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activities / CV items

Wikipedia articles aren't the place for the subject of an article to add material reciting whatever public exposure he has most recently received, or other recent professional events he's been involved in. These is an encyclopedia articles about a notable subject, not his personal curriculum vita. When these kinds of events begin to receive more than passing third party coverage, then they are appropriate for inclusion. (Many of the other events in this article easily qualify.) A professional association's own link to its own podcast isn't an indication that something matters, but rather just that it has happened. It's one podcast, not a "significant development". If it is significant, it will garner coverage; and then a disinterested editor, unaffiliated with the subject, can add it. Oh and by the way, it's not "vandalism" to disagree on points such as this so don't call it that. E goldstein (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years this article has been the focus of attention by more than half a dozen "single purpose accounts" (see WP:SPA) whose only interest appears to be editing this article and articles related to the subject. See the contributions of these many editors:
Special:Contributions/Topgman2
Special:Contributions/216.15.36.135
Special:Contributions/69.108.105.151
Special:Contributions/RussianBear2014
Special:Contributions/AnthonyPelicano
Special:Contributions/JackinMD
Special:Contributions/100.36.229.246
Special:Contributions/Samuel_Shaw
Special:Contributions/SamuelShaw2017
It's very unlikely that a bunch of different independent editors would come to Wikipedia, create accounts, come to this one article to edit, and then retire from the encyclopedia forever, as so many of these editors have done. Far more likely it is a series of associates of the subject, or the subject himself, come to edit the page in ways favorable to the subject. This kind of manipulation is forbidden on Wikipedia, and it is probably why the autobiography and conflict of interest notices have remained on the page. Read WP:COI.
I emphasize it's not the function of an encyclopedia article to list every media mention that the subject of an article receives, and these most recent efforts, to add references (in two different places) to Weber's "special relationship" with Madoff looks a whole lot more like self-promotion than an objective, impartial attempt to impart information about the subject. Oh and again it's not "vandalism" when editors disagree so knock that off too. E goldstein (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the material seems borderline to me, in the spirit of compromise I have consolidated the citations and moved mention to the part of the article where the teaching relationship with Madoff was already mentioned. The material certainly doesn't belong in the lead, where only the most important and basic features of the article are summarized. E goldstein (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. There has been a long-running effort to push the ongoing prominence of this article subject far beyond the main thing for which he is remembered—the SEC whistleblower case. Keep an eye out for sockpuppets on here as well. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous and unsourced materials

An unnamed user 174.66.67.154 persists in trying to add libelous material to this article that is either unsourced or poorly sourced, and thus is a BLP issue or vandalism. It also appears to be an SPA, as the person has made no edits other than to this article. Please refrain from doing so in violation of rules. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.21.166 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_P._Weber