Talk:Merle Terlesky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Merle Terlesky, has edited Wikipedia as
Merlet (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Unsourced material

I have removed a paragraph which I can find no source for. As it puts the subject of the article in a negative light, please do not put it back in unless it is attributed to a reputable source. Fred Bauder 12:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed material from a chat room due to the impossibility of verifying it. Fred Bauder 16:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Merle has done well enough on his own to cast his character in a negative light --Cloveious 19:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of the article is now sourced. If you remove material and post no reason in the discussion, it will probably be RVed. --Mista-X 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see *any* sourcing in this article. I came on this article surfing, and I have no idea who this guy is, but there are no sources here that I can see. I presume you know the subject so well you think it's obvious where to look, but it isn't. --209.89.134.26 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made changes to the bio as there is no way to confirm who actually said those comments in that chat room called excite. (comment left by merelt)

Whether or not there is complete proof that Terlesky actually said those things himself, the allegation is still there. I added the word "allegedly" twice in that section. --Mista-X 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed, do not readd

Following a complaint on OTRS (293094) I have removed the same content that Fred Bauder previously removed above. Regardless of how many times words such as "allegedly" are used, bulletin boards, chatrooms and the like are inherently unreliable sources and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Do not readd the content. --bainer (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The logs are available and Terlesky never denied this in the past. Merle is simply trying to cover up a few things he regrets now. --Mista-X 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Mista-X, if you have not done so already, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you have already read them, read them again. --bainer (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Mista-X I have never agreed that I ever said such things. I do not threaten people ever and thus those accusations are false. I want to thank Bainer for removing these false statements. How would you know mista-x anyhow who are you???? (added by merlet)

Merle, nevermind who I am. The only clue you'll get is that I am one of the youths that was unlucky enough to get one of your crotchety e-mails several years ago when you used to troll the old CPC message board. I also read your articles in Rebel Youth from the '80s when I worked in the CPC office. That said, no one ever claimed you made "threats", and at the time when people asked you about this incident on the CPC board you NEVER denied it. You said those people (as well as me and everyone else) where going straight to hell if they didn't see your way. Get help Merle! --Mista-X 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Readers, I have been forced to make some editorial changes due to the attack on my reputation. It is my personal opinion that the previous article is a smear job and attempts to slander my good name. A few points. Moving from Toronto to B.C was for one sole reason and that was to find work. There is no record of a criminal charge on my record of the so called soliciting a prostitute charge, thus it is not right to say so. I ask anyone to prove my criminal record includes such a charge. Furtermore while it is wholly true I have emailed the CPC and former YCl members, but not for some time and it is not a regular hobby. As a former communist I am concerned about any attempt to re-build that movement. Furthermore I am not a member of the pro-life board anymore and have not worked for Campaign Life since 2001. I still hold my persoanl views on the matter of abortion, and that is my right. It has been stated in the press that the homosexual man beaten in that park was in fact participating in questionable behaviour in that park that media admits is frequented by gays. I in no way agree with the assualt what so ever and have never said such! Finally this question about pictures. The Manning picture was taken during a federal election and that is all. I do not force my self on political leaders and the picture was voluntary on Mannings part. Please prove otherwise. Once last thing re the Mulroney dinner. I was not dressed as chef, that was John Clarke not me. I simply walked into the room and towards the podium. I did not nor was I ever in the kitchen at any time. I suggest you check the archives of the Toronto Star and Toronto SUN. In addition I am seeking a legal judgement against the pro-choice action network for their slanderous article and I would ask politely that you not link to it. I am making every effort here to be accomodating and would ask the same please of Wiklepdia.

Thank you.


Merle

p.s. Mist-x has no right to make comments about me as he has a certain interest in slating it as he is a communist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.96.10 (talk)

[edit] The Religious Laundry List

I'm removing this bit:

"Terlesky claims to be against racism and discrimination and that he tolerates other's religious beliefs. However he abhors Astrology, Channeling, Black Magic, White Magic, Witchcraft, Palm Reading, Numerology, Tarot Cards, Water Witching, Silva Mind Control, New Age, Hypnosis, Goddess Worship, Wicca, Eckankar, Clairvoyance, Buddhism, the Bahá'í Faith, Bestiality, Yoga, and Blood Covenants claiming that they are "not in accordance with the Holy Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ".

which is just a really long and convoluted way of saying that he's a believing Christian. Of course, if he believes in the one thing, he doesn't believe in the other. --209.89.134.26 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

I've removed all of the unsourced material from the article, which as it stands is essentially the entire article. The material has been unsourced for a very long time; in fact, I can't find sources in any of the old revisions that I have checked. It appears that some minimal attempts at sourcing have been made, but they are along the lines of "Terlesky told a B.C. newspaper..." and "telling The Vancouver Sun..." As a bare minimum, titles and dates of newspaper articles must be included to allow other users to verify the material.

Per the biographies of living persons policy, the material should not be restored until sources can be provided. --bainer (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is ALL material has been removed from the article, then sneakaly protected as that version. This is an abuse of power and inappropriate. I'm sure not even Merle himself is that ashamed of himself. As soon as I get the page unprotected, I will properly source every damn thing in it, even though the sources are there they just aren't formatted properly. --Mista-X 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There were no useable sources included in your contributions. As I said above, attempts at sourcing along the lines of "Terlesky told a B.C. newspaper..." are not adequate because they don't allow other people to check the source. It's not enough to mention the Vancouver Sun, you need to at least say on what day the Sun ran the story you are referring to, and the story's title. If you include less information than this then it's not possible for people to check what you are saying.
In terms of your other attempts at sourcing, you did include inline links to some webpages but they didn't support the contentions that had been made. As one example, you stated that Terlesky was a member of some organisation and then linked to that organisation's website, which didn't mention Terlesky at all. Can you see the problem?
I don't necessarily have problems with what you are saying if it is indeed accurate. But you must supply your sources to allow other people to verify that what you are saying is accurate. --bainer (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election

I am aware that this member is running in the upcoming Calgary municipal election, and I just wanted to comment that I hope none of this will spill over to that article, which itself has been a target of conflict of interests and such. I hope this problem is fixed soon. Crazyjz 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted photo

I deleted the photo based on discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Merle Terlesky picture. Concern was expressed that display of photo was a safety issue.

The issue can be reviewed without having the photo in place. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Merle_Terlesky_picture Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Support restoration of the photo to the article given the linked discussion. Frivolous complaint, given the fact that he himself distributes photos of himself on his own website. Nesodak (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Judging someone's complaint as frivolous when you don't know what prompted it is irresponsible. You are not qualified to make such a judgement. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
How does this picture put him at any more risk than the pictures on his campaign website? The only additional information it gives is that he's a Calgary Flames fan. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Question for Wanderer (and this is a sincere question that isn't intended to be loaded): who is qualified to judge the merits of the complaint? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Excellent question. Based on the information currently at hand, very possibly nobody in Wikipedia is qualified, as there may be factors we have no knowledge of.
Therefore we should assume that there may be a actual risk and delete the picture without delay. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't shown anything to demonstrate this "complaint" isn't silly given the fact this person himself distributes his photo on the Internet. How do we even know that Merlet (talk · contribs) is Merle Terleskly and not some troll who wants to get the picture removed and make Terlesky look like a nutcase in the process? Nesodak (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The onus is not on me to prove there is a real risk anymore than it is on you to prove it is "silly". It may be "silly", as you put it. I don't think I ever said there IS an actual risk. The point is we were told there is a risk and for all we know there MIGHT BE one. The cautious and prudent thing to do is to act as if there is a risk. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave it to the OTRS people to decide. I don't see an urgent need to remove the photo and you haven't provided any arguments that haven't already been addressed. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a stalemate as far as I'm concerned. I'm not convinced by what you and others have told me, and I apparently haven't convinced anybody of anything. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is to keep the photo for the time being. Merle Terlesky is evidently on wikipedia so if it's a pressing issue for him he can provide us with more information as to why this is an urgent matter and what danger is posed by having this photo in the article when other photos on his own site do not put him at risk. I don't see the point of indulging in speculation and the arguments you've made aren't compelling (at least they haven't convinced anyone). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


hello all, the fact is its my picture and I dont want it there as it can be harmful to my safety. You can email me at merlet@shaw.ca with any questions. This pic was taking w/o my permission and can be used by radical muslims who were at the rally where that pic was taken. I looked up Ezra Levant and he is well known and there is no pic of him. This is targeting and I want the pic taken down for my own werll being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.46.97 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merle, the fact is there is no legal obligation to do so. As well, you have pictures of yourself all over the internet as it is, and have sent pictures of yourself to people before. Given such behaviour, and general nuttyness from you in the past, you should not be surprised if there is lack of sympathy or anyone who even believes your frivolous claims.Levant not having a photo up has more to do with the copyright issue then notability. --Mista-X (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking or looking for sympathy and mista x you can screw off. I want that picture taken down and I demand it now.I have contacted the head office and will also contact legal authorities if needed. That picture was not authorized and it needs to be taken down please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Legal threats at Talk:Merle Terlesky. Nesodak (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a complaint received via OTRS that was sufficent enough to warrant the removal of the image ( Ticket #2008032410019086) John Reaves 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[redacted per WP:BLP]. --Mista-X (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please mind WP:NPA. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep that up and you'll be blocked Mista-x. John Reaves 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That won't stop me from laughing. --Mista-X (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The truth about Merle

[redacted per WP:BLP]. --Mista-X (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't bypass BLP, by linking to a personal site, to go after somebody. I have redacted the link, and some other text, defaming the subject. --Rob (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The text is already in the old revisions, so I really don't care. --Mista-X (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Safety issues?

How can a person who complains that a picture of them here compromises thier safety yet have pictures of themself on their campaign page here I simply do not understand this complaint. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Merle Terlesky in email, and he said "The point is my control...". Unfortunately, the Foundation now seems to accept the subject of a biography has some degree of control over their biography. Terlesky has repeatedly accepted, or even uploaded, images of himself on other web pages. He's even accepted this same image in other places. It is only this particular page, he doesn't want *any* image on. It's unfortunate, but his legal threats were highly effective. --Rob (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.46.97 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this troubles me as well, especially since the current interpretation of WP:NFCC does not allow non-free images in BLPs. Blueboy96 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't non-free, it was a free image from the Commons - Image:Merle Terlesky head.jpg. Nesodak (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know--what I was saying is that using that logic, someone could demand that a free image of them be taken down as well. I don't think that's a route we want to go down. Blueboy96 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah - well, yes - that's exactly what happened here. Nesodak (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I have reinstated the indefblock on Merle, as the post he made from that IP was clearly a legal threat. Blueboy96 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On another related note, I've asked User:John Reaves - the OTRS volunteer who removed the image - to stop by and clarify what the rationale for doing so was, whether the rationale would apply automatically, when a BLP subject requests removal of a free image, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As JzG mentioned at AN/I, it's best to let this go for now. Though I do think this ticket deserves further consideration. John Reaves 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with letting this go for now. The questions I have are
  • who should give this further consideration?
  • when should they do so?
  • is this process - removal of a free image on request from a BLP subject, with further consideration taking place later - the process that we should follow for all BLPs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose me and in a few days. No, it isn't an iron-clad policy or even really a policy at all. But when you have an angry, minorly notable subject that can be pleased by a simple act, it should be considered. John Reaves 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, just that. It's not an admission, or a concession, or a promise, it's just de-escalating the situation to the point where calm dialogue becomes possible. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me. You'll let us know the results of your reconsideration when it occurs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see how a pic could be removed at the subject's request if it portrayed any personally identifiable information (like his house, etc.) In that case, I would think a case could be made for an IAR speedy. But this pic? I just don't see it ... unless there's more at play here than we know at present. Blueboy96 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hope there is something that's known to WP:OTRS, that's not know to us. Otherwise, OTRS shouldn't be used, and the community should be free to discuss and edit this article, and re-add the image if that's the consensus. It feels like OTRS has taken over editorial control of this article. --Rob (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The quoted otrs ticket gives no information not already known here other than contact info(which is not relevant). Unless I am missing something, we are in full possession of the facts used to decide to remove the picture. I also think it should be returned as there is no real danger to the photo since he has his photo published on his own website. (1 == 2)Until 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I suggest re-adding the image now, and an OTRS person ask by email, if he would like to have a better image (like one on his campaign site) be released freely, to be used in the article. --Rob (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This seems a sensible idea. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, agreed. (1 == 2)Until 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply can not beleive all you people are debating this pic as much as you are really? Its a pic and dont you all have meaningful lives to live? good grief —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.6.78 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you have such a meaningful life yourself I am surprised that you found the time to comment on a topic you consider so trivial ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] adding image back, but uncropped

I added the image again, but it's now uncropped. So, there's less image detail of his face as a thumbnail. If people like this approach, the next step would be to reduce the resolution of the image in Commons (and delete the cropped version). Basically, my approach, is to ensure we're giving less visual detail than Terlesky gave himself when he ran for office. This image also shows what he's notable for (being a political activist). --Rob (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. (1 == 2)Until 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

update: I have now nominated the old image for deletion on Commons. --Rob (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That link does not work for me. (1 == 2)Until 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
fixed. --Rob (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The image on commons was replaced with one so small that you could not render it at thumbnail size, so I uploaded the full sized one locally so that Wikipedia consensus can decide on the issue. I did so in a manner that complies with the original images GFDL license in that I credited the author and gave a link back to the original with its revision history. (1 == 2)Until 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what you're seeking. Do you want the image to be kept in full resolution, or do you agree with it being shrunk (just not shrunk as much). --Rob (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit from shrinking this image. (1 == 2)Until 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since there's no interest in the low-res version, I reverted to the high res on commons. --Rob (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)