Talk:Franz Lidz

ANI notice

Following a note at my user talk page, I have brought the situation with this article to the attention of the administrative community here. As I am unable to notify the various sock accounts involved, I am placing a general notice to editors interested here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article at the current version -- that should make cleanup easier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to have been composed by the subject himself. It reads like a resume or a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.253.229 (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz. For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack (DELETED), who has used at least three Wikipedia account names to make alterations. I and other members of my department have continually tried to undo his revisions -- yet he will not stop the harrassment. I have contacted other Wikipedia administrators, but they have been unable to make (DELETED) cease his relentless edit wars. Is there anyone I can appeal to who might be so empowered. Thanks so much for your help.TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold (Bloomsbury USA)TruthBTold212 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries that pertain to (DELETED). You state in reference to Franz Lidz that "For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack..." This is false and you are mistaken. *We have no interest in Franz Lidz* However, is it not someone from your neck of the woods that has been making liberal use of the name Robert Garside, using multiple Wikipedia account names? If so, this is not permitted on Wikipedia along with potentially libellous comments about living persons. Dromeaz (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dromeaz: At this point it has been well-established that you are, in fact, (DELETED), and have been using several different account names as camouflage. I am not interested in debating that point. I do take exception, however, to the relentless attacks you have made to this entry. Our staff launched this page, one of may posted for numerous acclaimed authors we have published. As with those other authors, we oversee and monitor entries. You have continually abused your editing privileges and should not be allowed to vandalize this and other pages. The shocking enormity of your behavior is both shameful and egregious. As to the question of whether you have been libelled in a story published in a national magazine nearly a decade ago, that is something you should take up with your attorney, and not bemoan here. Sports Illustrated stands by its story, which, we have been told, has appeared unaltered and unchallenged on its website since publication. Give it up, Bob.TruthBTold212 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We finally have an answer to the question, "What if you took a witty, informative, accurate and fully-sourced Wikipedia entry and handed it to 50 monkeys to edit on 50 word processors." As it turns out, at the behest of the monkeywork of Wikipedia's reductionist staff is as entertaining as a barrel full of them. Just a few observations: Of all the dull, mangled "prose" the Wikis added at the behest of an acknowledged fabulist (DELETED), my favorite is the change from "he chose journalism because he wanted to 'find an 'ism' that wouldn't become a 'wasm to "he wanted to chose a profession that wouldn't go out of style." I guess that's what you get when you outsource the paraphrasing of the subject's joke to telemarketers in Bangladesh. I also treasure the insertion of the word "amongst" -- doubtless by a Dickensian scholar still living in the 19th century. "Whilst" I'm on the subject, Wiki's crack staff has inserted no fewer than six GLARING errors and deleted a link that has necessitated two "citation needed"s. Great work! Bronze stars all around. I took the liberty of forwarding this entry to one of the subject's publishers. Here is her reply: "Hilarious. I love the idea that the smug, self-congratulatory Trekkies and Tolkeinites (SarekofVulcan, Amog, etc.) hired by Wikipedia consider themselves 'professional editors.' They seem to truly believe that they have been entrusted to protect the public from "blurbs" and "advertisements", and that entries are a kind of unalluring but nutritious breakfast cereal to be packed with factual fiber. Wikipedia editors envision themselves truth-seekers, fact-miners. You would think these facts lay about like pieces of gold ore in the Yukon days waiting to be picked up. Sadly, there are no such facts. In a sense all entries, like all stories, are written backward -- they are supposed to begin with the facts, but in reality they begin with the poster's point of view, a conception, and it is the point of view from which the facts are subsequently organized. Journalistically speaking, 'in the beginning is the word.' All this is difficult to explain to the layman (much less Trekkies and Tolkeinites), because he gets the impression that you are saying that truth does not matter and that you are publicly admitting what he long ago suspected, that journalism is a way of 'cooking' the facts. Really cunning journalists, realizing this and eager to raise the status of journalism in the esteem of the general public, positively encourage the layman in his mistaken views. they like him to have a picture of these nuggety facts lying about on maybe frozen ground and a lot of noble and utterly unprejudiced journalists with no idea whatever of what they are looking for scrabbling in the iron-bound earth and presently bringing home the pure gold of Truth... In any event, please don't change a word of this entry. It's priceless." She's right, of course. Wikipedia began as a noble concept -- a free encyclopedia built by the global community. But this sort of "execution" -- literally, figuratively -- by a troop of ham-fisted "editors" has reduced the website to a punchline. So, take it from here, chimps. I'm acceding to the publisher's wishes. If it helps, we monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. Happy hunting.TruthBTold212 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary on the article and its rewriters, TruthBTold212. I regret that recent changes to it are not to your liking, but I am happy to infer that you have nevertheless derived some amusement from the process. Your anonymous informant is wrong, however. Whether human or (as you guess) chimpanzee, I for one started with no point of view whatever of Lidz, of whom I'd never heard. As for this person's comment that I love the idea that the smug, self-congratulatory Trekkies and Tolkeinites [sic] (SarekofVulcan, Amog, etc.) hired by Wikipedia consider themselves 'professional editors' I wonder where it came from. I can't start to look inside the heads of SarekofVulcan or Amog, but if the "etc." in that is supposed to include me, it's very wrong. I don't consider myself a professional because I'm not being paid. ¶ Thank you for divulging that you (plural) monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. This could be useful information for Wikipedia; and, if it's not mere fantasy, it's rather revealing about the state of US publishing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My axe. You have it.

I quote: "he wanted to chose a profession that wouldn't go out of style." If you are referring to this, then us [sic]Telemarketers from Bangladesh wholeheartedly agree. The state of American publishing and their presumptuous representatives truly are in their golden age. You will have to excuse me now, for I have a meeting with Gimli, son of Gloin. In the meantime, you have my axe. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Brilliantly put, TruthB. The teens who edit these entries have as tenuous a grasp on the English language and idiom as they do on American publishing. The problem is not just that these so-called editors have no expertise or insights into the areas they police. The larger problem is the humorless scolds who find marketing conspiracies in American newspaper stories, magazine features and book reviews. The idea that the author of a memoir is an unreliable source about himself is the spectacularly laughable, as are the "Cleanup" notes at the end of this discussion. A sorry commentary on the state of cyber publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.185.57 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

"When Lidz came to S.I. for a job interview during the summer of 1980, he wore black Converse hightops, a wool sport coat and a hunted look. His résumé read like a picaresque novel. He'd been a DJ, a soda jerk, a substitute teacher"

Dear God, this article is terrible. I noticed it on Jimbo's talkpage. Should I leave it like this for now? I'm itching to start copyediting it - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 18:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rip it to shreds, so to speak. Paid editing is one thing, but this is just advertising, plain and simple. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The article repeatedly quotes humorous little stories about Lidz that were written by Lidz. Lidz is hardly an independent source on Lidz; such stories should be filtered through some other, independent writer before WP should bother with them. ¶ Further, we're told that Lidz has written a humorous autobiography. Surely its unfair to the author and publisher of this autobiography for Wikipedia to reproduce nuggets that can be expected to appear in it. Let those who are interested pay money to get it on their "Kindles" (I believe that is the current preferred American way of consuming literature). ¶ Now, if Lidz has written books that have been noted in the New York Review of Books or similar, let's summarize the notes they have made of these books. ¶ I have made a very small start at cutting autobiographical drollery from this article; kilobytes more should go. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Worked on career and personal life. This is really really hard :( - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, actually. The key is to put down your editorial scalpel and instead use your editorial machete. I'll pause now, and let somebody else tackle the awestruck write-ups of the man's œuvre. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, the whole thing still reads like a marketing blurb, it has a long way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was reading through the references in the article. The following year he delivered to his outrageously fortunate classmates Hamlet's most celebrated soliloquy. Me Gusta. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They do try to help each other out, but it's a sports mag meant as mass published entertainment (think Swimsuit Issue), so they can get away with over the top reviews, that doesn't mean it's helpful here. Meanwhile I sorta gagged on the unsourced line, The author encountered a burrowing botfly on a course in Panama and engaged in an increasingly preposterous e-mail exchange with a Nigerian scam artist. Blurb city, meant only to hook 'em into the book. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that paragraph just gets better and better - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a name and replaced it with "(DELETED)"; this severes the connection between that name and potentially libellous references to that name. I hope you understand that we'd rather not see it there.

Conflict of Interest

Given the information in this AN/I thread, it appears that an undeclared WP:PAID editor has used multiple socks to edit this article, so I have put a COI template on it. It is not to be removed until this matter is cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a total dumpster fire that I can't even begin to tackle, but for starters I nuked the TWELVE citations in the lede telling us he's a columnist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You did well; and DGG carried on the good work. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hoary,Beyond My Ken, DGG, Premeditated Chaos, I have looked at the first 15 references - most all of these are articles that Lidz has written. A couple of the references are no longer available (Philidelphia Enquirer). I suspect the almost all of the rest of the references do the same and a few are reviews of his book. These articles that are written by Lidz are used to back up claims made in the article about Lidz.

As has already been stated above, in so many words, this goes against policy. Articles written by Lidz are not independent sources; they do not significantly cover the topic (or subject) of this article. This fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Any book reviews are about the books and again do not significantly cover the topic (or subject). Also, memoirs written by Lidz are not independent reliable sources. Lastly, this article is simply an index for Lidz's articles.

Well, I am removing the first 15 or 16 in the lede. And "Vice President" of Detroit Pistons seems really vague. Lidz is not in any of these positions. [1], [2], and I don't see any sources that say he was in the past. Maybe these articles written by him say this, but I am not going to read through all of these. If anyone has a source -please provide. Of course this would be a good reason why he got so many articles published in Sports Illustrated. --Steve Quinn (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, good, but . . . uh (cough) . . . when you look for Lidz, do please look for "Lidz" (ell eye dee zee/zed). A careful reread of your otherwise fine comment will perhaps reveal why I make this seemingly odd response. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I noticed I misspelled the name a few times after I posted. Sorry to cause concern. Don't worry I am paying attention to the correct spelling "Lidz" and "Franz". ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I corrected all the misspellings (I think). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, I've actually "retired" from this article (i.e. taken it off my watchlist) because it's in the hands of a number of well-qualified editors, who I am sure will take good care of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to find any evidence that this subject is a current Detroit Pistons Vice President of Communications or VP of anything else. The Sports Illustrated link is not dated and there is no way to determine when it was last updated (see link here). Any Sports Illustrated articles I saw in this Wikipedia article that were (or are) used for sources were all dated in the 1980s. So, as far as I am concerned, this link to SI is out of date. Also, I have no idea if it is authentic, being only one source. Other sources are needed for verification. We rely on multiple independent reliable sources. This is in our guidelines and policies, in case anyone wishes to go and see this for themselves. I am willing to be generous and say former VP based on one source - for the time being. Hopefully, other sources will show up. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A conversation

My name is Franz Lidz. For the last 40 years I have worked as a professional journalist. I spent 27 of those years as a senior writer for Sports Illustrated. For the the last five, I have been a columnist for Smithsonian magazine. I am also -- concurrently -- Vice President of Communications of the Detroit Pistons, an NBA franchise owned by Palace Sports & Entertainment. All of these inarguable facts can easily be verified in the External Links section of my Wikipedia page. (For instance, the Sports Illustrated resource search opens to my current bio, which is scrupulously maintained by my longtime employer: https://www.si.com/vault-authors/franz-lidz I’m still a contributor to that magazine). Similarly, the Smithsonian magazine resource search has catalogued my columns - sometimes with additional biographical material - since my hiring in 2012. Both full-time jobs have long been listed on my Wikipedia page.That is, until yesterday, when an editor changed one job title from columnist to "published magazine article writer” and the other to “former vice president.” I should note here that I rarely pay much attention to my page unless a Wikipedia user alerts me to mischief by other users. But yesterday was different. Yesterday morning a college professor sent me a distressing email about what he termed "vandalism and trolling" on the Talk page of my entry. At the time, I wasn't exactly sure where the Talk page was, but when found it, I was horrified. Copy had been mangled, misinformation inserted and aspersions cast on my character and integrity. For reasons I can only guess at, over the last few days one editor implied that I lied at a reading I gave before several hundred people, and that if I hadn't, I should have. (In a subsequent post, he frantically walked back this theory, but the damage had already been done and his biases baldly revealed). In another exchange, the professor mentioned that he teaches my oeuvre in his classes, prompting another editor to snark, "I look forward to the invitation I am sure will be coming from you shortly to look over your course material and help you improve it." (Emphasis mine. In the magazine world, we call this "open contempt" for a subject - not the sort of neutral attitude WP encourages in its editors, is it?) By tacking a couple of demeaning templates onto the first page of the entry, that same editor implicated me, my family, close friends and a onetime Bloomsbury U.S.A.publishing flak in a vast conspiracy to insert my name into pretty much every Wikipedia story ever written. OK, I may be overstating things, but the notion of any conspiracy between me and people close to me (let alone "paid" by me) is as insulting as it is preposterous. (I have no idea who's responsible for the pranks, but pinning the blame on a dead Bloomsbury publicist is probably the wrong way to go). BTW, Bloomsbury delisted the book in question in 2011, at which point the paperback rights were sold to Penguin, which doesn't plan to market it the anniversary of the event, in 2024. Tell me - Why would Bloomsbury care? These Wiki shenanigans - and the egregious behavior of the editors behind them -- both anger and disgust me. Normally, I’d just shrug it off as “kids will be kids.” But Wikipedia editors are alleged to be adults. The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation. According to Talk page guidelines, personal attacks and insults are not allowed (Editor Ken violates this rule repeatedly). Which is why I have been advised to request that the entire entry - including the Talk page -- be "blanked" and replaced by clean, untainted copy. I realize that under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. But these aren't normal circumstances. Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. Your rulebook also notes that "completed deletion discussions (or other discussions) may be blanked for reasons of privacy or courtesy to individuals. Which suits me fine. I'd love to put all this behind me and give the page a fresh start. In other words, I'm asking for a common courtesy.

I look forward to your response. FLFranzLidz (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

An WP:ANI filing has been made regarding this post. See here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is Franz Lidz again. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, and following the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.50.201.240.110 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm addressing this to you as though you are Mr. Lidz, although as I'm sure you know there isn't any way at the moment for me to be sure of your identity. I am a volunteer administrator here, and this is my first foray into any dispute involving this article, as such I'm unfamiliar with its history. I see you're concerned about disparaging statements on this page and I would like to help if I can. I think you're referring to the subsection above this one, titled "conflict of interest", and the comments by editor Premeditated Chaos (their signature reads "PMC"). Although I can see your point about an unfair characterization, it appears to me that they were fairly responding to an inquiry from the anonymous editor (represented by an IP address) and not directly casting aspersions as to your professional or personal character. However, since I feel it will be uncontroversial, I am going to go ahead and blank that section as a courtesy.

As for the article and the banner on it, I cannot blank it at this time. A recent investigation (linked here) revealed that edits to the article were made by a group of technically-related accounts, likely persons paid to edit who did not disclose their employer as required by our paid contribution policy. Our customary response is to block the accounts and remove the offending edits as much as possible, and then rebuild the article according to our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. In the process, occasionally true but presently unverified information is removed. You've encountered the article in the middle of this process, unfortunately, but there is a fairly trustworthy team of volunteer editors working on it. The banners are meant to indicate to readers only that the article is not currently up to the standards one might normally expect (we hope!) of a Wikipedia article, because of those reasons, and they will be removed when the issue is resolved (we hate those banners too). Actually, as it turns out another editor has removed them as I was typing this, so there you go.

If you are not satisfied by this, there is a process for you to request deletion (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) but that process may require you to confirm your identity privately. I can provide help with this if you decide to pursue this route.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector: I would LOVE to have this ridiculous page deleted and I am happy to confirm my identity privately. Please provide help. Thanks.50.201.240.110 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'll see what I can do. Deletion of this sort is subject to a community discussion which will be open for 7 days (possibly longer) for editors to provide input and "vote", although the outcome is determined by consensus and not by head count. You are welcome to comment as well, but please only do so from one account. There will be a notice on the article when the discussion is opened, which I'll do shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, FranzLidz, for posting this here (and on my own talk page). I broadly agree with Ivanvector, above. I don't want to comment on each subsidiary point; for now, I'll just limit myself to one description within a comment above that most probably wasn't made by you but that seems to be compatible with what you write, viz: "The larger problem is the humorless scolds who find marketing conspiracies in American newspaper stories, magazine features and book reviews." Here in Wikipedia, I am a humorless scold. I have participated in the removal of some humorous or anyway good-natured material from this article. On occasion, I've done so with some regret. Wikipedia isn't entirely without humor, but what humor survives is very tightly constrained. (You'll find it -- or anyway I find it -- in the article toilet paper orientation, for example.) We're po-faced, or try to be. The articles that are mostly my work end up pretty dreary, even to me -- unless I find amusing commentary that I think would add to the informativeness of the article, and that I can attribute to a disinterested source. Yes, this article has been drained of a certain amount of charm (as well as other ingredients), but there was nothing personal or vindictive about this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franz Lidz. 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/20081013160831/http://gothamist.com/2007/08/03/hows_the_boss_s.php to http://gothamist.com/2007/08/03/hows_the_boss_s.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)