Talk:Gavin McInnes/Archive 1

Nationality
Why is he referred to as American if he was born in the UK and grew up in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.235.52 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Age
Born 1970, age 52-53?? What?--Aginor 27 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A few changes
Hi everyone. I reverted a lot of edits made by a recently blocked editor. I also removed uncited content that (you never know!) could be challenged. I also removed family names, etc, as frankly, that's not really encyclopedic unless he married someone as notable as him. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is Gavin McInnes
So, the guy is controversial, that's what I can understand from the article. But who is he? Is being controversial enough to warrant a Wikipedia-article? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You did a good clean up job, thank you for helping. I am not sure why he is notable but I have tried to AFD less notable people and it didn't work because they edit wikipedia. Do you think the quote about his parents is a COPYVIO? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was notified by your message at Sitush's talkpage. Which quote do you mean? I can't find it in the text. And still: who is Gavin McInnes?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He is founder of Vice magazine and gets in press alot. In his background section there are sentences about his parents. They are taken exactly from the source there, look for "Gallium". Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I only see plain info on his parents, no quote. and short quotes, when referenced, are acceptable anyway (as long as they are insluting etc.). Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the plain info oh his parents is exact sentences, all of them, from the source. I don't know if that is ok. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Others
I think the first quote in opinions of others should be moved up because it has a quote from him. Do you agree? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only a very short one. The emphasis seems to be on Frank's opinion. Without context, it's not clear actually (at least to me) what's the relevance of this quote (other than showing that McInnes is deeply disliked by some people).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

False Accusation of Edit Warring
User:Yworo, who identifies himself as a Rouge admin, has falsely accused me of edit warring. This is apparently based on two edits I made to Gavin McInnes on August 30, 2014. In the first, I asked via my edit summary that User:greenrd justify his preceding edit by copying an external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlinking it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. He did not do so. Instead, he undid my intervening revision and commented testily in his edit summary, "for the last time, it's still there. the URL is the same. It's hidden by a Javascript banner so there is no other URL." In my next good-faith edit, I politely repeated my edit summary request that User:greenrd copy the external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlink it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. I also requested that User:greenrd explain to Wikipedia readers how to access a secret "hidden" link not visible to the naked eye. I again concluded my edit summary by saying thank you. And as before, User:greenrd did not comply with my simple, straightforward request to make his edit explicable to ordinary users of Wikipedia. Yet Rouge Admin Yworo nevertheless felt compelled to accuse me of edit warring! I categorically deny his unfounded allegation and hope that we can take this to the appropriate venue for dispute resolution at the earliest opportunity. JohnValeron (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem, you've made three reverts over less than 24 hours: that's the definition of edit warring. One more and you can be reported and blocked. And read closer, I am a rouge non-admin. Also, if you have a problem with me or my edits, bring it to my talk page: your rant is not appropriate here. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please proceed. I invite being reported by a Rouge admin. I will be exonerated. JohnValeron (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reports may only be made after the 4th revert. And I assure you I will. Edit warring has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. But it is you who is wrong, there is a warning page with a "Continue" link at the bottom, which takes you to the original article. Drop it. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not and never have seen a "Continue" link at the bottom of the warning page. Please wait for another editor to verify that he or she sees that link before reverting my good faith edits, which are meant solely to not mislead the Wikipedia reader. JohnValeron (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it and used it. I am verifying that there is a "Continue" link as asserted by User:Greenrd. How many editors have to tell you before you believe it? Three, four? Try another browser. And enjoy your upcoming 24 hour block. Yworo (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Update I have, with great difficulty, finally located the Continue link in question. So I concede the article is not exactly "withdrawn." However, it's all but impossible to find. So we need to think of a substitute word for withdrawn that conveys this state of near invisibility. JohnValeron (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Already properly taken care of. If you continue to mess with it, you will only earn a longer block. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)