Talk:David Paciocco

Quality scale comment
This article talks about the later life of David Paciocco. It lists his major publications and gives a very brief overview, with a specific example, of how some of Paciocco's work is being used today. Very well cited. The article needs work on the current living status, (perhaps in Ottawa), his past life, etc. This may be dificult without original research since I haven't seen too many biographies on Paciocco. Essentially, many resources exist by researching Paciocco trials, however, interpretation may lead to Original Research. Perhaps this biography is just the place to summarize all the information. Finally, difficulty may arrive if we do an interview or have some critical thinking on his philosophy or work which could be original research. Any other comments on this subject, since I'm the guy that started this article, would be greatly appreciated. --CyclePat 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo
On May 6th 2008 there was a discussion on Mr. Paciocco's photo at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content. (( The next archive of that talk page should be Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 36) The conclusion of this discussion was that we should take a "well representative picture" of Paciocco in a public location and release the photograph under a free licence such as GFDL.  --CyclePat (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The debate is archived in #35: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 35. --CyclePat (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice board discussions

 * COI discussion at WP:COIN - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
 * BLP discussion at WP:BLPN - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

removal of tag and some content...
in this diff, removed a chunk of content and the tags on the article with edit note: "Rv per comments previously - please discuss on talk page." MDann has not commented here, and from my perspective the edit did not address the problems that led to me tagging it, so I reverted. The article is subject to pressure from 2 sets of editors - one set of two editors from the Andre Marin's office (prior to their declaring their COI and stepping back from directly editing), and the other set being parties who are still editing who are determined to put Marin and his associates in a bad light. The article needs careful review - slashing a section and removing the tags is not appropriate, in my view. I am currently working on cleaning up the Marin article. I would be delighted if someone would give this a careful review, but I intend to get here eventually. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've stubified for now. We have received an email expressing concerns, the best course of action appears to be to stub the articles for now, then work through and rewrite the sections in draft form. OF course, if people disagree, I'm fine discussing this action. Mdann52 (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * this is a more reasonable solution than your first one. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be cool if those concerns were expressed where people could read them, so we could get around to fixing them. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at Mdann52's user page, you see that he works WP:OTRS. Those editors are hammered (I am grateful he took a second look after his first pass) and the emails they receive are kept private. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Folks, in the interest of transparency, I mentioned a few days ago on my talk page (re COI) that I had also sent an email to WP:OTRS, as instructed on the Help page. The concerns raised are the same ones now being discussed. Thank you.Eljaydubya (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a valid thing to do, and you didn't have to disclose it. Thanks for stepping up. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Inedible, are you familiar with OTRS? If not, please do read about them.  They perform a super-valuable function for WP and like I said, they are hammered - there is not enough of them and way too many concerned parties, and WP has legal obligations that the OTRS team takes care of.  I am satisfied enough with the solution that Mdann52 did for now.  It is for you and me to rebuild this and that other articles on really NPOV grounds. This one is the bottom of my priority list with regard to this matter.. Marin is first.  Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Somewhat aware, and wasn't knocking them. Just a bit confused as to what to do about a problem we don't know exists. But if the concerns were the same raised on the boards, I guess we're doing alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

as the issues had already been stated, it didn't seem worth going through them again, I'm only greatful I'm not getting shouted at too much If you guys need any help, I'm willing to lend a hand, but I can be a bit... over the top in terms of editing at times by my own admission. Mdann52 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Press Council Complaint
I just reverted your edit and wanted to explain. I think you've confused the complaints by Andre Marin that were not upheld by the Ontario Press Council with the specific complaint by both Marin and Paciocco about the legal contracts. The Toronto Star articles were separate articles and the complaint was a separate (but related) complaint. I guess you can add that other complaints by Marin not involving Paciocco that were denied but I don't believe it's relevant to Paciocco's page. It is relevant to Marin (and is already covered on his page). FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)