User talk:JzG/Archive 51

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

JWFind article deletion

Hi, I realized just now page JWFind has been deleted. :( with reason that it is not notable. IMO it indeed is notable, in the degree as many other niche social networks linked from List_of_social_networking_websites are. I did my best to make it readable, unbiased, covering most important information.. etc. Please, what should I do to make it deletion-prone? I'd be very glad for any recommendation. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, yes, I see, the sole fact that tons of similar pages exist does not automatically prove notability. I agree with the statement. But still I'm convinced that the page is notable enough to be kept. How could I prove its notability? The value is not in the web itself, but in the lively and increasing membership base behind. The web is also unique, there is no other similar project. In compliance with Wikipedia:Notability_(web) it has been mentioned on various places already, independently on creators, such as lovetoknow and by some bloggers too. Also, the site has been designed as a space for applying results of scientific research, thus various aspects of the site are to be mentioned in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on high-quality conferences. E.g. some acceptability questions related to the site will be presented and discussed on IE10 and site's unique distrust model on SWIE conferences held by Monash University in Kuala Lumpur in July this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you are convinced, but since you seem to be engaged in promoting this site in numerous places around the Internet your judgment is perhaps not the same as ours. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I listed the site on some places elsewhere. Does it automatically mean that subject of the article is not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the site does that. A web forum with 500 members - you're about 499,500 short... Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
IMHO it would be not much objective to decide mechanically, just by member stats. Of course, it's much easier to get thousands of members on some general-purpose social network, whereas member base of a site where users have to prove that they meet tight requirements can't grow so quickly. If you assume networking site targetting 7 bil people, it may easily get 500k members, but it is incomparable with a site aimed on a group of 7 mil. Well, again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comes to my mind, looking at the list of other social sites, where many have lower Alexa rank, no members stats published at all, even way lower traffic Scispace.net, Pingsta or some already closed, e.g. Mobikade.. I think that these pages are worth to be kept, because their unique focus. They are interesting suitable for encyclopedia, because they were novel, introduced some new concept etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
IMO you are promoting a non-notable website. End of. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, RE your deletion of the SBS Radio Alchemy Program page

I am not the original creator of the article, on the talk page I requested a 24 hour grace period to try and source the content. The program is part of the national, government radio network and even the briefest click on Google news brought up a score of awards/articles which would have verified notability. I agree the article was too promotional, but your speedy was well out of line given I'd posted a hold on, 'particularly' as you are 'meant' to click google news to check if the article might warrant inclusion. Judging by your page it looks as though you're extremely trigger happy with your deletes, please consider politeness and protocol in future. Stevezimmy (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gray Loeffler LLC

Something weird is going on with this page; the deletion appears in the log, but the content is there (maybe an edit conflict???). It may be worth a look. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Hi. I believe that the following three users are meatpuppets of User:Bircham, who is known to you and me as the owner of Bircham International University. Before taking any action, I'd like your second opinion:

I say "meatpuppets" rather than "sockpuppets" primarily because Shoovrow has a long edit history that indicates an affiliation with Bircham, but is otherwise inconsistent with W.M.'s work. The other two are WP:SPAs who have made very limited edits to the BIU article. Taken together, I believe the most likely explanation is that all three of them are editing the BIU article as a favor to W.M.

Thanks for your input. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Blocked the two single-purpose accounts, but please do push back against the whitewashing. Every source that is not influenced by Bircham, describes them as questionable; Bircham relentlessly attacks anyone who reports this and then uses any that give up as "evidence" that they are not crap after all, but still they don't pursue the only legitimate route to provable quality: accreditation. They say this is "unnecessary" or not properly available to them, but they are wrong on both counts. And they have been trying this shit for literally years. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Third Report Article Deletion

Hi. I noticed my article on Third Report was deleted. I saw the reason it was deleted was that it did not really indicate what about the site warranted its inclusion in an online encyclopedia. I updated the article in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TonyBorelli/Third_Report to highlight the fact that it is unique among citizen journalism sites in that it uses geolocation software to automatically taylor the local portion of the news to the user's location, so that local news can be front page news without the user having to register and identify his or her location.

I'm not sure if this meets your needs or not, and I hope I'm not way out of bounds in thinking/hoping this article could be useful to folks looking for this sort of thing.

Any advice would be great. Thanks, Tony. 2 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Sources need to be non-trivial, primarily about the article subject, reliable and independent. The sources you cite all fail at least one of these criteria. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I won't resubmit unless/until the site gets some attention from a source that meets those criteria. Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem, thanks for understanding so quickly. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Breut Carmen

Just to back up your delete decision, I was about to re-add the db-g3 tag as a result of further research:

I noticed that the first reference given (the only one with a URL) doesn't mention the subject. The other two references were to a book, where page 149 was cited. The book is available in Google Books and page 149 is the only page not visible there. The other reference was to a newspaper called "The New Tribune" in Tacoma which has never existed. It is a plausible typo for "The News Tribune" but that name wasn't adopted until a year after the claimed date of the article.

In short, I was wrong, and you made the right call.

Thparkth (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks. It socred the coveted zero non-Wikipedia Google hits, which is always a good start :-) Guy (Help!) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoovrow

Hi, Thank you for your suggestion on Bircham International University. I saw that you deleted my article Death and Adjustment Hypotheses. I thought, the user "King of Hearts" deleted it previously and letting him know while I recreated it will be enough initially. I thought, it has the references now to reside at Wikipedia. Will you please suggest/explain?Shoovrow (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You need reliable independent sources which are primarily about the concept. Do you want a copy in your user space to work on until it's properly sourced? Guy (Help!) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, a copy would be nice. But I shall be very grateful if you see the references and indicate the faults in them specifically. It is a brief postulation and some reference can be deducted if indicated specifically. Pls take your time and let me know.Shoovrow (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Hi, JzG. I've reverted your move of this page as there is a current discussion on the talk page regarding the page title (as well as many previous discussions). Moving a page during such a discussion really shouldn't be done; let's allow the discussion to reach a result. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, I notice that if you examine it with a microscope there is a tiny trace of a biography lost amongst the extensive coverage of the news story. I despair sometimes. No reputable encyclopaedia would pretend to have a biography of this person! Guy (Help!) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether standard practice should be changed or not is of course a discussion for another page, but keeping the article at the victim's name seems to be current practice when looking at related categories (Category:Disappeared people and Category:Murdered American children for example). Regardless, anything you can add to the move discussion would be appreciated. Best, --auburnpilot talk 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Standard practice already is not to pretend to have a biography when the subject is actually a single event or crime. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AuburnPilot, given the discussion on the talk page, it was better to await the outcome, especially with three admins all maintaining the article and opposing the move. As for the bio, she was 18, and there is a limit to how much, in an encyclopedia, you can say about an 18 year old's bio (the major section on toilet training is out). BTW, did this article come to your attention through a noticeboard we should be aware of, or did you just chance upon it?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that there is a general consensus to move the page among users as a whole, but because the three most active editors of the page are opposed to a move, individual discussions never reach a consensus (with, in my opinion, the second AfD for the page being an exception and having reached a consensus to move the page that was never acted on). Though the current discussion has turned into a discussion of the different titles' merits, my main point in starting that discussion was supposed to be that there already was a consensus to move the page, and I was merely adding my opinion on top of what I believe to already be a consensus. I don't think it is reasonable to decide the issue based solely on the current discussion, and that to do so would be ignoring the main point I was trying to raise by starting that discussion. Instead I think that an univolved user or group of users (i.e. someone who had never expressed an opinion on the issue) is needed to review all the past discussions and decide whether or not there is a consensus to move the page. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Playing Fields (band)

I quite clearly stated in the discussion area of this article why it was valid:

On what basic is this band notable? Snoop God (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, band has over 100 press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with band.

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

is that enough? Please let me know if you need more.

I am on here regularly. Whilst this band may not be Madonna,

General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...

and it doesn't stand alone, it is not an orphan.

This is another example, like First Aid Kit (band) who recently performed in fron of thousands of people at the Primavera Sound Festival, attendance 80,000, of valid articles being deleted.

Wikipedia states the policy as copied above, which this article fulfils. If only Madonna and Bruce Srpingsteen and McDonalds can have Wikis then the whole site is invalid. Are you going to remove the Velvet Underground? Please rethink.

Fiedorczuk (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My amigo, who uses the same log in has reloaded the page. According to the wiki notabilty criteria on here you don't have to be Madonna, or Mc,Donalds to be here- this has fulfilled the criteria, full stop.I have referecend the article plenty. Fiedorczuk (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You write great advertising copy. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court (again)

Hello JzG the page has been edited again and is not NPOV. Can you advise me should I be requesting page protection? It seems pointless to me to continually revert it. Berkinstock (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This post by Berkinstock was written by a sockpuppet. What is your relationship to Guy ? You both seem to have deleted user pages? Edasent (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello JzG

Dear Brother/sister, I am desperately looking forward to learn the drawbacks from you about the deleted article DAH in a specific manner. Please let me know after you get time to see it.Shoovrow (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Rather than go another round at ANI about Mk5384, I will just advise you of this edit in the hopes that administrators will at last do something about this guy. I'm sure MK will scream about conspiracies and me stalking him, but enough is enough. After narrowly escaping two serious blocks, MK is back to EXACTLY the same kind of behavior, this time calling another user an a-hole, stirring up edit wars and disputes on other articles, and claiming that nothing is his fault but all the fault of others. Please review as well MK's record and tell me there is something we can do. -OberRanks (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Was also wondering if you would be willing to certify an RFC/UC, in particular due to this most recent diff [1], which is clearly a subtle attack on my military service. -OberRanks (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit, I've blocked the user for 55 hours. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If such behavior continues after the block expiration, I will go head and file the RFC. MK is also almost certainly to file an unblock request; in the past, when ever this has been granted, it has filled MK with a sense of "vindication" and the user often has seen the unblock as an endorsement of the original behavior. I would seriously urge administrators to avoid unblocking MK early. -OberRanks (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nod. But this probably isn't the place to do such urging. Perhaps we should raise this at ANI to get wider attention. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bachir Attar

Hi JzG, after a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, I have moved Bachir Attar back into the mainspace. Though the article is largely uncited and the subject has apparently edited it, he is pretty unquestionably notable so I don't see a reason for deletion/userfication. Obviously, if you believe I have missed something and it should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate it at WP:AFD. Thanks. --B (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Some people don't care as much as I do about blatant self-promotion on Wikipedia - in fact might well be in the minority in opposing it as strongly as I do. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't mistake adherence to the relevant policies with indifference. I moved it back not because I believe it is a well-written article or that self-promotion is ok, but because the individual is unambiguously notable and the article does not qualify under G11. --B (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And I moved it out because I strongly feel that egregious self-promotion does not belong in mainspace, per WP:NPOV - I think no article is better than a crap article because an independent person may well come along and fill the redlink with something that is not promotional. But I'm not going to pick a fight on this, someone else can take a scythe to the article. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The article on Bachir Attar is part of an area of self-promotion that has a long history, though there is a kernel of notability. See all the articles found by this search and notice the very long (but informative) text at User:FayssalF/JK. Bachir Attar by himself appears to meet WP:MUSIC, though there are some promotional aspects across this set of articles that may deserve cleanup and the combining of duplicate material. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


All persons recently communicating on this topic are subject to a topic ban for NPOV going back two years. The fact that some were editing their own pages is worthy of notice as an admin issue.

It is clear that Bachir Attar is notable as a figure for a wikipedia entry. It is also stated that the last edits were by his manager using the user name Bachir Attar. Stub and be done , Catapla (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Infotech Enterprises Deleted Page

Hello,

I would like to speak with you on the deletion of the Infotech Enterprises page.

It says that the previous content didn't show importance. I would like a review of the content so I can fix it to make it show on Wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanie.Massari (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Deleted by several different admins either for failure to assert importance or for outright advertising; every version was created by an account with no other history. Please tell your colleagues that creating articles on their own company is a bad idea and that conflict of interest editing can backfire badly in adverse publicity. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in April, you took down a Roussillon restaurant post -

Roussillon is a Michelin-starred, London French restaurant. http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2010/04/01/332913/Alexis-Gauthier-buys-former-Richard-Corrigan-restaurant-Lindsay.htm The restaurant is named after the village in the Lubéron rather than the Catalan region. http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/nick1030.html Roussillon’s trademark is the exquisite blend of French cuisine with the finest of British seasonal vegetables. http://www.roussillon.co.uk/home.php Alexis Gauthier was the Chef Patron of Roussillon, on the 2nd of April 2010, Roussillon announced that, following twelve years of successful collaboration, Alexis Gauthier had decided to move on to devote more time to his other projects. http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/default.aspx?page=articles&ID=204716

Please could you let me know why it was taken down & if you could help me get it posted on Wikipedia.

Many thanks, Steph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph 270 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Because it was advertorial. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Ok, thanks. That wasn't intentional. If I re-write it, would you mind checking it over before I post it? Thanks, Steph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph 270 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  • It still reads like an advertisement or press release. Do you have some connection with the subject? Guy (Help!) 16:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't have any connection with the restaurant, I just love the restaurant & food and believe that it deserves to be on Wikipedia. I've re-written the piece, would you mind letting me know your thoughts please / any where I can improve before I post it.


Roussillon restaurant

Roussillon is a Michelin-starred restaurant on 16 St Barnabas Street, in Pimlico (London, England). The restaurants name comes from the village in the Lubéron rather than the Catalan region. [1]

Named by Chef Alexis Gauthier after acquiring it in 1997 in partnership with Alex, and James Palmer (the same entrepreneurs who set up, then sold, the New Covent Garden Soup Company). It had previously been Marabel’s, but new ownership prompted the name change. [2] Roussillon was then starred by Michelin back in 2000. [3]


The restaurant offers a blend of French cuisine with British seasonal vegetables. [4] Favourite dishes include Blue Bembridge Lobster, Colchester Oysters, wild rabbit from the North Downs and Scottish venison, [5] herbs and vegetables are freshly picked each morning in Surrey.

It was the first restaurant to introduce a ‘garden’ menu degustation for vegetarians, which made the news for it’s 5–course Flower Menu of petals and floral essences coinciding with the Chelsea Flower Show. [6]


In 2005, Alexis caused a stir by dropping chicken from the menu because of the bird flu. However, its biggest claim to fame could be that it was the first restaurant ever reviewed by Giles Coren, back when he was with Tatler. [7]


Chef’s who have worked in the kitchen of Roussillon include Alexis Gauthier, who in April 2010 decided to devote more time to other projects. Gauthier is due to launch a new restaurant at Lindsay House with Roberto Della Pietra, the previous head sommelier at Roussillon. Gauthier will retain his share of ownership in Roussillon. [8]


Roussillon’s residence itself was previously built after World War II bombing, the building is now smart, minimal and tasteful. [9]


References

  1. ^ http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/nick1030.html
  2. ^ http://foodsnobblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/roussillon-london/
  3. ^ http://foodsnobblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/roussillon-london/
  4. ^ http://www.roussillon.co.uk/home.php
  5. ^ http://www.roussillon.co.uk/home.php
  6. ^ http://foodsnobblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/roussillon-london/
  7. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/eating_out/giles_coren/article862240.ece
  8. ^ http://www.roussillon.co.uk/statement.php
  9. ^ http://foodsnobblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/roussillon-london/


Many thanks

Steph

  • Still reads like a press release. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind response expected

Hello Guy, I hope this finds you well. I need your response on the drawbacks of the last version's references of Death and Adjustment Hypotheses. I am willing to exclude the faulty references and add the suggested type of references, if I find them. I am willing to do the article again, but I need clarification to understand the recent drawbacks.Shoovrow (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. THis is my usual writing style & I thought Wikipedia require facets & references. Do you have any help that you can offer on this?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph 270 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notices

Dear JzG, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about A3 designation for talk page archive

You deleted Talk:Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire/Archive 1. I assume after JohnnyMrNinja moved the material to Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive. I was reading about the A3 designation in the CSD article and it said it should be used for articles. The articles page said that talk pages aren't considered articles. I'm curious as to how the A3 designation is actually used. (I've been trying to follow the guidelines Help:Merging in merging Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire into Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and it does not seem to suggest archiving the source talk page into the destination talk page. Nor about handling source page talk archives. Is there another article I should look at? Thanks in advance. I will watch this page. Vyeh (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not a huge fan of shrubberies. If a result looks reasonably obvious to me then I think it's fair enough to just do it. It appeared to be a request in good faith. Far too much of that article and its discussion is blatant WP:OR anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rakuto Tochihara

Despite the odd account's involvement, Rakuto Tochihara is a notable actor in Japan, and I attempted to completely rewrite the page to show that. I only kept the Crunchy Roll link last night because I thought that would have been sufficient to show that he is notable epr the now stricter BLP prod shit, but you disagreed and now I've discovered five additional references. It is somewhat difficult to find references considering he has not been in a major starring role in 2 years.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem and no hard feelings I hope, feel free to remove the tag. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice

You are invited to make a comment at Wikiquette Alerts under Removing vandalism [[2]]. PYRRHON  talk   01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

Does this look awfully like Irvine22, who you blocked indef in March? Right timescale, right editing areas, same interest in "stauner"s (see my comment at the probable sock's talk page). It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... what's the best way to proceed? --John (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Black Kite did the necessary. --John (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cloud camp

See you there? Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Sadly not, I have another appointment that day (black tie do). Guy (Help!) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds fun too :-) Perhaps we'll meet up some other time then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Good company but an amazingly bad awards night, quite hilariously so in fact. I mean, Data Domain was not even on the list for "best deduplicaion product" and they actually gave an award to ArcServe! We felt like we'd slipped back into 1989. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Juice Lounge

Hi Guy!

I was wondering if you would reconsider your deletion of the abovementioned article? It cites two reliable sources, indicating that it may meet GNG, and while the wording could perhaps be adjusted, I do not think it is blatantly promotional in any way. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the prose contents of the article:
Juice Lounge serves 100% Fresh and Natural Juices & Smoothies!
The chain boasts of more than 40 unique juices which are made 100% fresh and natural in front of the guests at their live bars!
They also serve Low calorie Salads, Low Calorie Brown Bread Sandwiches! Their Pizzas and Pastas are for the foodies and are considered lip smacking yummy!:: Their Super Boosters consist of Whey Proteins, Weight Gainer Blends, Fat Burner Blends, Energy Blend, Brain Enhancer Blend, Calcium Blend, Vitamin Blend and even an Immune System Blend!
In other words, onec the crap from the WP:SPA is stripped out, there's nowt left. You'll be better of starting tabula rasa, though you can have the junk if you really want it. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It's true that it didn't start out so well, but Empty Buffer (talk · contribs) did a good job of cleaning out the advertising wording. I'll take it that you do not object to it being restored. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That came from the final version as far as I could tell, but I will look again. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about moving article

JzG, just had a question about the deletion / moving of Jake Hertzog to a user account. I am fairly new with using wiki, however I am not the actual artist. What will qualify this page to be a legitimate article? I am fairly sure the artist meets notability requirements, and I can add more references if needed. Please let me know what I can do, Thanks. --Hertzog11 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Writing autobiographical articles is a bad idea. Reposting them after they are deleted, as you did, is an even worse idea. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

JzG, I understand.. but this is not an autobiographical article! I am not Jake Hertzog though my user name says Hertzog11. Also, I only reposted because I thought I had fixed the changes you cited. Please let me know what needs to be done. thank you, Brian --Hertzog11 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • It's a heavily promotional article by an account with no other history. You should try working on other articles to get a feel for our policies and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Seems a non-autoconfirmed user is having trouble getting in touch with you; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request- contact user- semi-protected page. Have you considered setting up a non-autoconfirmed talk page as suggested by Wikipedia:PROT#User pages? –xenotalk 13:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Aspland11 is autoconfirmed, he has created an article. He is also autoconfirmed under two previous accounts. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, new users, even if they are not autoconfirmed, can create a page, as they have the createpage right. (See Special:ListGroupRights for more information.) It may be possible that he had not reached the ten-edit threshold when he tried to contact you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
True enough, but he does have two other autoconfirmed account she can use. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner

We (as in you and I) got complained about in Mr. Winner's Sunday Times column yesterday. To cut a long story short, I think flagged protection would be an excellent idea for his page. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Ho hum. I have asked the editor for a copy of the article. His PA was not exactly co-operative, though of course she is under no obligation to be so. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Having reviewed the newspaper column in question, and all of your emails in OTRS relating to this situation, I hereby award you this Original Barnstar for exceptional kindness! Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Greetings and request

Greetings JzG - I've just seen that you deleted Un Techo Para Mi País for being a copy-paste job and NPOV. This is true, and indeed I put the tags on it to that effect. However, after some hairy moments trying to sort it out late last night, and another admin helping out with the move of duplicated versions, several editors have since been trying to fix the article as it is certainly a notable organisation, its only sin being that blatant copy-edit. As it was at was at the top of my to-do list now that I've arrived home, I'd be grateful if we could negotiate a 24-hr stay of sentence and/or a PROD in order to give me - and others - time to clean it up. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Copyright is not negotiable, do we have a release from them? If not then WP:FORGET is your friend. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to negotiate the copyright angle, I was asking if you could let me rewrite it and make it suitable for Wikipedia. As you were the deleting admin, please restore the article title (plus the inline reference I had provided 'cos I don't remember what the context was). The organisation is notable, but one of its problems is that it has mainly Spanish-language sources. I'm willing to spend time on it, as were other editors. Thanks! --Technopat (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A rewrite is absolutely fine, but starting afresh is definitely the best option here to avoid the taint of copyright and promotion. I recommend you start in your userspace at User:Technopat/Un Techo Para Mi País. I guess you know the sort of references and tone that's required, if not then I am sure one of the WikiProjects will be able to help out. OK? Guy (Help!) 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Will do. I was just hoping to recover some of the stuff in there to save time - and that reference. Thanks anyway. --Technopat (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I just had a look, I don't see any refs that are not to the group's own website. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'm pretty sure that I got one (the only inline citation in there?) from a UN web page, but maybe my mind's playing tricks again... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pls help

Dear Guy, Will you pls tell me how I can get the last deleted version of "Death and Adjustment Hypotheses"? I need that, but I lost its copy with my computer.Shoovrow (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC started

MK was blocked again, as you might have seen. Based on this, I asked for an unblock for participation in an RFC. It's now filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384. You're welcome to contribute as you've had multiple dealings with this user in the past. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing all over the place.Mk5384 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Reasonably, in this case, since I have in the past blocked you for exactly the kind of behaviour he describes. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Right...Mk5384 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Injured

Low activity for a while due to being knocked off my bike. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:( Syrthiss (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Get well soon!Shoovrow (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sympathy from me - if you get bored I've no idea whether this is spammy. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Get well soon. Hope your block/delete finger wasn't broken in the accident. Spartaz Humbug! 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold @ User talk:Greg Barry

I've got to tell you I am having trouble seeing the justification for this block. This user appears to have been editing in good faith and indeed added sources that directly verify some of his edits. Perhaps I am missing something? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make it abundantly clear when unblocking them that they should be very careful how they edit those articles, and that they should discuss anything remotely controversial before adding it to the article. They don't seem to have made any edits or to even be aware they are unblocked yet. I'm finding this is often the case when spooling out rope to a blocked user, they get their unblock and that's the end of it. Funny. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SumTotal Systems

Is it worth creating a redirect to Sumtotal Systems? Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • That's the same firm, also created by a WP:SPA after SumTotal Systems was protected due to multiple re-creation, in fact the lowercase article was already deleted at least once for the same reasons at the intercapped one. I am absolutely sure that there is only one person behind this. So it looks like the spammers have won on this one and we might as well give up. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_51"