User talk:Ponyo/Archives/April/2011

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From this dif it looks like you reported the right person. Even if you had reported me by accident, no worries. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok!My bad!First message removed!--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know your doing intentionally, if so ignore this, but it seems your vandalism warnings are still using March 2011 section headers, should probably be April ones at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 21:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I could pretend it's a lame April Fools joke, but truth is it was just a mistake. It is of course April now, but apparently my fingers still yearn to type March. Thanks for the reminder. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a couple of months ago you put in place a PP for Dave Hensman, a consequence of some undue weight, POV-pushing additions that may also have involved socks and COI. The PP has expired and the campaign has restarted. At least one of the users - which is an SPA - has had a full set of warnings and also advice from myself and another editor regarding how to deal with the situation in a manner that might be acceptable to WP, but has today continued regardless. The warnings are spread over a period since February & so probably won't result in a block. Can it be protected again? What else could we do? I have thought of adding the info myself in a more acceptable way but, tbh, a $2,500 fine is nothing in the context where it applies & this is why I suspect POV/COI etc + don't feel confident about having it there at all, true though it may be. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-protected the article for a month in order to allow for discussion of whether the info should be included at all, and if so to what extent. As their appears to be a degree of socking and/or meat-puppeting, you may want to make a note at the BLP noticeboard where others can take a look at the situation and help come up with consensus as to how to proceed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the noticeboard as you suggest + start something on the talk page. This is one of those articles where I know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have no interest in it) so anything I do is pure policy-based. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him either, despite the fact that it appears he lives only about 30 minutes from me. The good people at BLPN will certainly be able to help you out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done - raised at BLPN, note linking to it on article talk page & the last contributor's talk page. I've never fully understood meatpupetting as a concept but think it is effectively when people act as a concert party. I'll read up on it.

That's a rough area of the world you live in! Major white-collar crime within 30 minutes of you <g> Me, I've only got gangs, drugs and guns to worry about ... and the so-and-so who stole my scaffolding last week (it was erected at the time!) - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody stole the bench from my front porch the other night. Oh well, there's no escaping it regardless of where you live I suppose.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That article was actually deleted a while back, and since it is worse than it was before, it should qualify for speedy delete.--ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

hey there! there are some things which are to be updated in the article of Jake T. Austin...that is: He is currently filming New Year's Eve (film) with Sophia Vergara,Abigail Breslin,Zac Efron and many others in New York.

Only information confirmed through reliable sources should be added to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

i was personnaly in this gang and asked a member to create a page about us. Please re display the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.172.172 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about "Bega streets", which contained a bunch of unsourced claims about gang activities. The article contained misinformation and was a mishmash of other gang articles. The article cannot be restored in its present state. If you are serious about creating a factual article then I would suggest using the article wizard, but read notability criteria for organizations and Wikipedia's reliable sources policy first please. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest. Looking through the edit history shows that the date of birth was changed a number of times to the correct date and you reverted it back to the incorrect date, citing the lack of references. However, there was no reference cited for the original, wrong date of birth either. Is there some page on wikipedia that talks about how this kind of thing is worked out? Eg, in this case, the information on the first revision is taken as the truth until proven otherwise. Seems odd. Nevster (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You would be surprised at the number of birth dates that are changed on articles on my watchlist (which numbers 8500+) on a daily basis - it is a very common form of sneaky vandalism. If it becomes apparent that a date is flip-flopping (as was the case here), then it is best to remove the date/contentious info altogether until a reliable source is provided. The most important lesson to take away from this is: if you are going to add or change any existing info in a biography, ensure you include a reliable source for verification. If you're ever in doubt, leaving a note on the article talk page (as you did in this circumstance) is a great way to discuss the changes you would like to make to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Nevster (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I left you a welcome message on your talk page that has a lot (perhaps too much!) information with regard to editing. Hopefully you will find some of it useful, and please feel free to ask me any questions here anytime. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo

I regret to inform that you appear to have deleted my user page. Hopefully this was a mistake but it looks like it may not have been as I think you refer to the page as being a copy. It is in fact my original page with veryfiable personal information I have provided about myself.

As you can see there have been quite a lot of comments put in my user talk and as a new user I have been amazed and disappointed to find a large number of statements about me which are either rude or untrue. This really has changed my view about Wikipedia which until now I thought had high standards and was a good source of accurate information.

I have tried to reply to some of the users who often use names such as yourself to conceal their identities but although 'Vquakr?' and others sound friendly I have not received any answers to questions I have raised and I very much hope you can address this in the near future.

I hope you can re-instate my user page or help set up a Wikipedia entry for me if you still have the information - I very much appreciate positive activity rather than any destructive actions which take time to correct and are necessarily a drain on all our resources.

Thank you for your assistance

Simon Corry

Musician and Photographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.104.95.209 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that Wikipedia is not meant to be used as means of self-promotion. Period. There is nothing that I can add that has not already been detailed at User talk:VQuakr. If you are truly as notable as you believe yourself to be, then someone uninvolved will eventually create an article on you. You can always make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo

Will you please restore my user page.

Please note all Wikipedians are invited to enter information about themselves on their user page (unlike the requirements for an article) and you have deleted personal information which was provided in good faith.

Wikipedia was invented to collate factual and verifiable information. This requires diligence and not aggression, malice or biased opinion.

If you are genuinely interested in pursuing actions which violate the purpose of Wikipedia you may care to investigate some of the previous contributors to my user page such as the comments that I have worked with Andrew Lloyd Webber which are untrue.

Please restore the accurate information if you can and this will be much appreciated.

Thank you

Simon Corry

Musician and Photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are invited to add information about themselves related to their Wikipedia activities, but promotional text is not allowed (see WP:UP#DELETE. You have attempted to create an article on yourself twice, and it has even gone through a deletion discussion where the community decided by unanimous consensus that the article should be deleted. Your response to that was to add the promotional information to your userpage. I can email you a copy of the deleted text if you would like, but you need to desist in your repeated attempts to promote yourself via Wikipedia. Bringing your request to multiple administrators in hopes of getting a different answer is consider forum shopping, so please don't continue to do so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problems - no harm done. GiantSnowman 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I restored this article because I could only find one deletion discussion for it, from 2008. Given that said discussion is three years old and the page is substantially different, I think a new AfD would be required to re-delete it. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Out of curiosity, did you read the article? And look at what sources are being used? I only ask as a second opinion as something strikes me as "not quite right" with the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it can definitely be improved, but I've been in correspondence with the author and trying to work with him. Hopefully it'll improve; I started off about NPOV ... meh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all...wrong, especially the tenuously 'sourced' quotes from others on his work. Could he not have continued to work on it in his user space until the refs were up to par? I don't think it will survive an AfD its current state. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure that out, it's confusing to me, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Alexander (author) (second nomination). andy (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I had known Bass for many years professionally and then in his late life came to know him personally to a limited extent, although extremely remotely as we had not lived in the same country or continent since 1984. MrsHayward (talk)MrsHayward 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are the user who deleted the above page. I have no affiliation with that page or that company. First, are you an Administrator at Wikipedia? Second, how may I view the deleted content to see what you objected to so that it is not repeated in a new article? I do not see any ready links at the page one is redirected to. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, which upon review it certainly was. It was full of marketing jargon and non-neutral assertions. A much more serious concern that has come to light now that I've looked at the deleted article; it was a copyright violation of http://www.caratsecurity.com/heritage.php. The text was a verbatim copy of that webpage. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be so; at present I have no way of knowing. To date I've made something like 7,000 edits at Wikipedia and never run into a post-deletion situation such as this. I have no dog in the fight. I just want to know first, how to see the deleted content to understand what the problem was and use as a guide if I decide to create a new article; second, how to access the deletion discussion you refer to. At this point I can't seem to get past this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carat_security_group&action=edit&redlink=1), which does not even link to any content indicating there ever was a page to begin with. Last, are you an Administrator at Wikipedia? Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You would not be able to use the deleted article as a guide as it is a blatant copyright violation. It is an exact copy and paste of http://www.caratsecurity.com/heritage.php. If you would like to know what was in the deleted article, simply visit the website I linked to as the information is verbatim. I cannot post it anywhere on Wikipedia or repeat it in this email without introducing a copyright violation myself. As long as you are writing an article in your own words, then there should be no issue with you creating an article to replace the deleted version. And yes I am an administrator; you need to be an admin in order to delete articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but zowie it's a bizarro world I've stumbled into. Pure Alice in Wonderland. One can't see what's been deleted because if it's deleted they're not allowed to see it. Some tautology. Then tautology meets the Star Chamber, as you can't see it but others have and judged that it should not be seeable. Oppositely, of course if it were seeable, then - depending entirely on what it was and why it should not be seeable - it would be seeable, and it shouldn't be seen. Jeeze. A copyright violation I can see, but taken to extreme it's a mighty letter of the law defense. Such things, however, don't matter as all violations are violations and red kings and black queens should all take one step back. So, if I understand it I can't see the article as deleted, or access the deletion discussion, copyright violations, mind, or Wikipedia no-can-do's. But I can start from scratch. Right, then. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no deletion discussion. The article was created in a single cut and paste move, someone from New Page Patrol reviewed the article and tagged it for speedy deletion as overly promotional, I reviewed the article and agreed with the editor who tagged it for deletion, and it was deleted as such. There is no problem at all with you starting a new article on the same subject, good luck and happy editing! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, lest there be any confusion there is nothing Wikipedia needs more than a dedicated 24/7 deletionist. So be aware your efforts are richly appreciated. I'm just dumbfounded at the rabbit hole I've stumbled into. Wikiuser100 (talk)

I'm hardly a 24/7 deletionist. I remove CSD tags from articles that can be saved and have created articles myself (there is a list on my user page). Once again, good luck with the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. 24/7 would be OK with me. New Carat Security Group page created. Please let me know what you think...and by all means advise me before (if) there will be a recurrance of Mr. Speedy Deleter. I cannot see that there should be. Regards. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You should listen to this if you have time, Werner yukking it up with Cormac McCarthy and physicist Lawrence Krauss: [1] The Interior (Talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; now I can't wait to see Cave of Forgotten Dreams!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I asking for your help as I see you have dealt with the user Rusted AutoParts before. Earlier this week, I discovered many factual errors in the deaths section on the page 1994 in film. Most of the names in the deaths table were of people who actually died in 2010, not 1994. I cleaned up the table, deleted all the names that didn't belong and started adding names of actual people who died in 1994. User Rusted AutoParts keeps reverting my changes claiming he is in charge of editing the page and this is the way he does it. This seems crazy to me, as purposely posting false information on a page goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. The false data he is placing there isn't just there for a few moments but for days at a time while he edits the page. This is also going on for other "year in film" pages. I want to correct this and get all the false info removed, but it is just resulting in an edit war. I put a not on his user page, which he deleted, and one on the talk page for "1994 in film", which will also probably get deleted. What should the next step be? I appreciate any help or advice you can provide. Thanks. BurienBomber (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits certainly don't appear to be entirely helpful, and they do have a history of edit-warring. It appears another editor has given them a 3RR warning, so perhaps it will die down now. I won't be online much today, so if Rusted AutoParts does persist in returning the page to their own preferred and incorrect version despite your beginning dialogue on the article talk page, I would suggest putting together a 3rr report. Even if he hasn't technically violated 3rr, some admins there will block him on the basis of edit-warring without the three reverts in 24 hours present. Drop me a note if you do file a report and I will take another look for you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo! I tried to help out a bit with that Sylvester Stallone revert business and was about to submit a 3RR Noticeboard request against the IP to have him edit-blocked for a while when I noticed you had done four reverts today, so I decided to stop rather than call attention to the situation. Be careful not to let an anonymous account push you over the 3RR limit so you get slapped with an edit block.

This following pretty much describes it:

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty AND THE PIG LIKES IT!

Take care! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a target for drive-by vandalism, which this appeared to be. Per WP:VANDTYPES, blanking of sourced content without explanation and when the reason is not readily apparent can be considered vandalism. Once the IP began a discourse on their talk page I left their edits in place and tried to engage them further on both their talk and at BLPN, unfortunately they no longer seem willing to discuss the matter. The article is protected now in order to allow for discussion, so we'll see how it all turns out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I hope you don't think I was complaining or "warning" you--I was only trying to help out a bit. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for following up on the BLPN report. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I see that you blocked Riansmith2011 (talk · contribs) as a sock and deleted the articles they created. Would it be worthwhile blocking the current IP of the user, which is pretty obviously 90.218.208.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I honestly don't know if it would do any good, but thought you may like to know. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention Jenks24. I've included the info in a CU request and will see what develops. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for passing it on to the relevant place. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What have you done to my talk page please? Seesawmajorydoor (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your threat to report anyone who used your talk page to the police and the fake block notice you posted. Please read WP:UPNOT for information as to what is not an acceptable use of a user talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to User_talk:Xionbox#Pending_changes_question

Dear Ponyo,

To be honest, I hesitated before accepting these changes, mainly because of the removal of cn tag. Finally, I accepted to change because specific detail was added and the tag was several month old (sept. 2010). I though a source added since may have referenced this passage. Mistakenly though, I did not check nor the history neither the references for the exactitude of the added information.

Thank you for correcting my mishap.

Xionbox^₪ 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the main purposes of pending changes on BLPs, aside from screening out pure vandalism, is to ensure that information added to the article is accurate. If there is an attempt to add information without including a source for verification, or removal of templates that identify valid problems with the article, the change should be rejected. If you are ever uncertain about the validity of a pending change, then it's best to simply skip it and allow another editor to review. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo

Thank you again for your interest in my autobiographical entry. As you can see although not a skilled Wikipedia user I am a perfectionist and like to follow up all comments in detail responding to as many users as possible who open a debate. You are right in that I would have hoped for a better outcome but my main concern is to maintain the integrity of information that is placed in a public arena on a respected internet site.

I disagree on the issue of self promotion as without that concern much of Wikipedia would probably not have been created. Many friends and people with vested interests in subjects have created fine articles. I think Wikipedia and it's users would be better to admit that. It would become transparent and more valuable as a result.

However I am always interested in working within existing frameworks and respecting traditions and I am sorry if my edits have given an impression that was not the case. The reason I moved deleted content back to my user page was because I wanted to save valuable information that had taken time to prepare and Vquakr kindly suggested this on my talk page. I believe there are various ways of compiling information on a user page to allow an autobiography.

Yours sincerely

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have every right to disagree wit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however as they were put in place via community consensus, then community consensus would need to shift in order to change them. There are ways of compiling information on a userpage that allows other editors to know more about you, but this is meant to be correlated to your activities on Wikipedia. Your sole purpose on Wikipedia has been to promote yourself, the sole purpose of having autobiographical information on your userpage would be self-promotional as well. I'm concerned by how rigorously you are pursuing this attempt at creating a page on yourself, whether in article or userspace, despite it being explained to you repeatedly why such content is being deleted. Content deleted via deletion discussion and repeatedly deleted as promotional should not be hosted in userspace, so please desist in trying to do so. I know this has been explained to you many times, but if you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone without a conflict of interest will eventually create an article on you. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo

Than you for your reply and also thank you for offering to email me the lost copy.

Regards

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Simon - in order to email you a copy of the deleted article, could you please enable your Wikipedia email? It's simple to do; click on the 'my preferences' tab, and under 'Email options' click 'enable email from other users'. Just drop me a note when you are done and I will forward you a copy of the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo

Thanks for the offer but no need as there are numerous copies of the information I can access.

Regards

Simon Corry

Musician and PhotographerSimon Corry (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Are you saying that despite all of this information you were unable to to "identify the subject of the article"? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)"

I think you are confusing "subject" with "topic". The subject of an article is the specific thing the article is about, not the general topic such as "buildings" or "parks".

To begin with, it is impossible to tell from the article whether Villa Giulia is a house, a hotel, an ancient monument or some other kind of "building". It is also impossible to tell whether the "park" is part of the same complex or something completely unrelated to the building. I take it you would have had no objection if I had deleted this article as not offering any evidence or claim of notability.

Cross-references to another wikipedia are of no use in clarifying the subject of an article unless one happens to be a speaker of the language of that wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant in this respect. Deb (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note - moved to User talk:Deb in order not to fragment the discussion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I originally had a huge ssection here, but found you're not the author of the piece! I've redirected my comments to the author. CycloneGU (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note CycloneGU; indeed I am not the author, nor was I even the first editor to request the article be restored as an invalid A1 deletion. I'm about as uninvolved as it gets when it comes to this DRV. If there were notability or sourcing concerns regarding the article it should have been prodded or sent to AfD in order to allow the author and other interested editors the opportunity to address concerns. Instead it was speedily deleted under an invaled criteria. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and even now I am finding no response from the user who wrote the 10 word snippet. I've taken matters into my own hands and started doing a little bit of work on it from the Italian article (what I can glean from it from an imperfect Google translation, but it's a start), and another user has volunteered a German translation as well. So I've decreed once we have the translations in and noted on the talk page, we can start looking at sources and, if needed, translate those to figure out what is sourcing each bit of information, perhaps removing the need for the Other Wiki tags on the talk page. I also found a picture of the sundial in Commons; unfortunately, the picture in the Italian source is unusable (it's cut off on one side in any case). Also, Deb took note of my participation in the debate, saying she may be more likely to userfy items like this in the future if they can end up having such a positive result. =D CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Please do not delete Newcom Group article. This will be our Company article in Wiki. BR, Ganerdene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geganbat (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not be writing an article in order to promote your company; please read Wikipedia's guidelines with regards to conflicts of interest and promotion. In addition, the page you created consisted solely of an infobox and did not explain how Newcom Group meets notability requirements as outlined at WP:ORG. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about the descent categories i will be more careful.

Thank you. I've left some advice on your talk page, and if you have any questions with regard to any specific article categorization, please let me know and I will help you review it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

what would you like me to do for you to remove tags placed on bio? i asked same of previous editor who placed them there and have had no response. Nell 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have concerns that you have a conflict of interest with regard to this article. They have asked some questions on the article talk page with regard to the extent of the conflict and what effect it is having on the neutrality of the article. Once their concerns are addressed the tags can be removed; please do not remove the tags yourself as you are the editor who appears to be editing on behalf of Prendergast. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate dealing with this one talk page, as i have been running around to various sites to look for who wrote what where.

does anyone think anything should be changed in the article? i don't know what what want me to do. how can i satisfy the concerns? Nell 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All discussion should be taking place on the article talk page. The editors who have concerns may not be online at the moment; talk discussions may take several days or weeks to come to a conclusion, so please be patient. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo: This is Alugh's comment: I request User:Jespah to disclose the nature of his relationship to John Prendergast. Jespah has added a great deal of promotional content to this article, and I think that this article would benefit if the edits made by Jespah are closely inspected to ensure that the neutrality of this article is not further jeopardised. Alugh (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

His comment appears to suggest that the tag can be kept their indefinitely and was posted after I told him I would have appreciated his discussing a photo image size reduction with me, or show me the "wiki rule" stating limits of photo size... He never responded to that comment. Instead, he posted what you see above. Nell 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Alugh and The Interior are concerned regarding an apparent Conflict of Interest you have with the article. They have tagged the article as such and begun a discussion on the talk page requesting disclosure as to how deep your involvement with Prendergast and his activities are. Please stop removing the COI tag from the article until the issue is resolved. You need to give editors time to respond to your reply regarding the specifics of their complaint. Once it has been addressed and agreed upon that COI is no longer an issue, only then should the tag be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

____________________________

I take issue with Alugh talking to me as thought I am on trial.

The point is - if he feels that there is any non-neutrality in the article, he should cite specific references. Nell 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And they likely will cite specific instances, but you need to give them the opportunity to reply. Please be patient. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Just FYI about this user, as you previously blocked him: he continued right back to the same behaviour, ignoring both your and my advice, so I've blocked him again. I decided on two weeks, but perhaps it should have been indef...? He has shown no indication of being willing to discuss other editors' concerns and just continued blindly ahead... Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The two weeks could be considered a final shot over the bows before an indef. It's not too heard to wait out a day or two, a couple of weeks may bring him to the table to discuss why he's making the changes. My instinct is this is either a WP:COMPETENCE issue, or they just have no interest in editing collaboratively, both of which will likely lead to an indef if the problematic editing resumes. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good, we are thinking similarly about the situation. Thanks for your reply. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm wondering why you removed the family information from the Christoph Sanders article. I included it because when I was working on the article I looked at other biographies and many of them included this type of information. Why, after this long, was it removed? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Arcania63 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arcania63. The information was removed under BLP policy and guidelines regarding the inclusion of family names in articles (the specific link is WP:BLPNAME, which I also included in my edit summary when I removed the info). In general, names of living individuals who are not independently notable should not be included in an article unless the names are sourced and relevant to the notability of the subject. For example, it is preferable to include a sourced sentence in the family section that states "John Doe has two bothers" rather than "Joe Doe has two brothers, Mark and Todd". This affords greater privacy to the brothers who are not notable outside of their family relationship with their brother. From WP:BLPNAME: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You deleted this page on 12 April. He made his professional debut today for his club [2] as a substitute - can you please let me have a copy of this into my userspace so I can amend it/ add references etc (Assuming what was deleted is in anyway decent). Thanks in advance Zanoni (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your request I've moved the article to a subpage where you can work on it. It can be found here. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - now worked on and recreated/ Zanoni (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the userspace draft deleted now that the article is in mainspace? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodafternoon,

Can you tell me what is wrong with the Kerckhaert wiki-page?

Kind Regards,

Kai Merckx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merckx24 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion and therefore should not be recreated unless a substantially different version is created that addresses the original community concerns that resulted in its deletion. It also contained copyright violations of the Royal Kerckhaert webpage; Wikipedia cannot host any material that has been copied from another website without the proper permissions in place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.