User talk:JzG/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Airfence

Hi you had deleted this article a couple of months back stating it to be advertising. I have now re written the article, and just to inform you that I do not own this product. I invented it years back but have now sold it. It is being used in race tracks, ski slopes etc around the world, and I think it is worthy of a mention on wikipedia. There are a couple of other wikipedia pages that make a mention of airfence, and a lot of youtube videos and other sources that show its uses.

Can I upload the rewritten article once again?Mrx1015 (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, the WP:COI still exists and Special:DeletedContributions/Mrx1015 plus your complete lack of any other contributions to the encyclopaedia strongly indicates that your motive is not in line with ours. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what is the next available course of action, can some one else write this article. If you search 'air fence' online sufficient material should be available to write the article. If required I can help with specifics and technicalities. Mrx1015 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• The next course of action is, to be blunt, for you to go away and forget about using Wikipedia for self-aggrandisement. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way

Could you have a word with 98.149.114.34 as well? While she has been discussing the issue on the talk page there, she also subjected the article to a slow-churn edit war against multiple editors. [1] [2] [3]. It doesn't seem like anyone else thinks her version of the article is an improvement. A couple of admins posting to article's talk there have been attacked with more or less oblique rants; I'm not bothering with diffs for that, they're easy to find in the last talk page section. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's semi-protected, I see. The user hasn't edited for a couple of days. The comment on their talk page is basically an invitation to block them rather than engage in dialogue, let me know if the problem continues. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

More User:James Cantor COI edits

Hi Guy-- Not only has User:James Cantor said he intends to ignore your warning (not his first COI warning by an admin), he has expanded his COI edits to other professional rivals. He has been promoting the work of his friends on the Transgender article, and he has tried to put a POV spin on the article of Charles Allen Moser,[4] a critic of Cantor's ideas about pedophilia and hebephilia (just like Karen Franklin). What do you recommend for next steps? Jokestress (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have applied the Level 2 cluebat, I hope he gets the hint. Obviously I'm not going to take sides here, this is a very simple matter of protecting everybody's reputation form potentially serious adverse consequences, as I made clear on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Saddens me, but I can't say I disagree. Seems to be devolving into a bad case of WP:IDHT + WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy, let me know if information about the conflict between Cantor and myself would be helpful. (I lost count of the number of diffless accusations he's made against me years ago.) However, I think Cantor only brought me up[5] in hopes of distracting from the issue raised by Tijfo098 and others[6]. While I've been involved with trying to bring his self-promotion and colleague-promotion under check (e.g. [7]), I've only played a minor role in checking Cantor's competitor-denigration. While details can be provided ad nauseum, the simple fact that an editor would attempt to raise discussion of one mode of his COI editing in hopes of confusing the discussion of another mode of his COI editing pretty well demonstrates a serious problem here. BitterGrey (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. You are free to share anything you think will help me reach a balanced judgment, as is he. The "email this user" function works. I am not taking sides, though, so this is all about evidence of COI, NPOV violations and especially BLP violations. Those are more of a concern to me than off-wiki fights that are brought here, tiresome though those are. It's the impact on content that matters - and a compelling case has been presented at this point for (at the very least) significant concern. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Mariam Bokhary

from memory, this page was properly sourced. I would dispute the fact that it was an attack page in that we have articles on criminals of all sorts. There is no doubt to my mind that the subject is notable. True that there has been some overreaction in the press, but Bokhary is a well known and controversial figure exactly for her outlandish behaviour. I believe the article should be restored, and properly weighted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Ohconfucius. I agree that the article may have given too many details. But one cannot say it was not sourced, and this person is routinely making headlines in Hong Kong, so there is no question about the notability of the topic. Maybe she's "famous for being famous", but still famous. Moreover, the case can be considered as a proxy test for the independence of justice in Hong Kong, which is a big deal within the framework of One country, two systems. Traffic statistics give about 30 views of the article per day in March 2011, whci is low but not minor. I believe that Wikipedia should have an article about this person. It could be much reduced in length/ details and given full protection to avoid unnecessary additions of sensationalist details. olivier (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire thing was negative in tone. This was not anybody's fault, she seems to be a problematic individual to say the very least. I think it needs a careful review and rewrite, with many fewer tabloid sources, and am happy to place it somewhere that can happen. Her family are on the case, so we need not only to be fair but to be seen to be fair, yes? Guy (Help!) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you then please userfy for me? I realise that it may be in violation of Wikipedia:USERFY#What_cannot_be_userfied for a time, but I'll try to clean it up quickly before putting it back to mainspace. Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You got it. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have now largely reworked the article. Would you like to review it, or invite the nominator of the speedy to review it, before I put it back into mainspace? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion that includes you

I just realized that nobody has bothered to inform you about this. So, now I've informed you. Cheers! -- Atama頭 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Guy that I dragged you into an ANI spat, but apparently there's a new expert retention strategy; I missed the memo somehow, but DGG and Atama seem up to speed. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Len Stirling

Hello,

I see that you speedy-deleted the article for Len Stirling, a Canadian politician, a few months ago. Your deletion edit summary indicates that the article was deleted in accordance with CSD G10 (i.e., it was an attack page on a living person).

I've reviewed the deleted text, and I don't believe it qualifies as an attack page. The article isn't especially well written, and it could stand to have more sources, but there's nothing in the text that disparages the subject. (There is a sentence that includes uncited negative information about a different Canadian politician, but this could be removed fairly easily.)

Also, the subject of the article is clearly notable: Stirling is a former opposition leader in a Canadian provincial legislature.

I was planning to raise this matter at Deletion Review, but I thought I should first ask if you'd be willing to reconsider the deletion.

Thank you, CJCurrie (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The article had precisely one source, a press release, was mainly about other people, and served to belittle the subject, whose political career was, according to the article, both brief and minor. Basically the article was about an insurance salesman and some related troubles in a particular political party, not about a politician. I'm trying to find whatever complaint it was led me ot the article, it seems not to be OTRS. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a general (and longstanding) consensus that opposition leaders in Canadian provinces are automatically notable enough to be the subjects of biography pages, even if their political careers weren't terribly long. Would you object if I were to re-create the page as a proper biography? CJCurrie (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a general and longstanding consensus that notability guidelines are simply guidelines for which subjects are likely to have sufficient non-trivial independent reliable sources for an article, and that notability guidelines are not in and of themselves either a policy or a guarantee of inclusion. Now we also have WP:BLP in play, adding to WP:V. WP:RS and so on. Where are your non-trivial independent sources primarily about the subject? The only reference the article had was a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have access to several other sources; I'd just like to be sure that you won't object to the re-creation of a proper biography on this subject. CJCurrie (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No indeed, a well-sourced biography based on secondary sourced which are primarily about the subject would never be a problem. Teasing an article form taboid tattle or namechecks in stories about other subjects, that is where I have an issue. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay -- I'll create this article at some point soon, then. I just wanted to be sure I was doing this by the book in terms of re-creating a deleted page. CJCurrie (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. The original was pretty poor, not a lot of content, but if you want it userfied to your space you can have it. I'm on a plane most of tomorrow so if you want that feel free to ask any admin, I have no objection. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Panel game

Hello! I saw your editing of the panel game article and would really appreciate it if you could briefly pop into a discussion on the Hollywood Squares article on whether it is a panel game (there are cited descriptions if you're unfamiliar with the show). Here's the discussion. Thank you so much! 76.105.176.44 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong but..

..can you explain why this you created this page? I'm just both curious and confused.. Thanks! JohnHWiki talk - 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of ban appeal

Hi. In case you are unaware, GoRight (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to BASC which has been forwarded to the Community for discussion. I am notifying you as you participated in the ban proposal (which was enacted and is now being appealed); you would have some awareness of the context which led to the measure being imposed. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#GoRight ban appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)