Talk:Guy Manning

Akoustik
The article "AKOUSTIK" was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 02 December 2012 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Guy Manning. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. (December 2012)

Can you tell me why THIS album is to be merged when all the other 12 stand? What is is the rationale (if there is any?) [Guy Manning] Dec 2012 And how on earth are you going to merge all the content onto the main page????

Hello? anybody going to respond please? [Guy Manning] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I would like to suggest that this article be unprotected: it seems to me that a valuable article can be created and that Manning satisfies WP:BAND criteria. Here is a suggested beginning to an article...

... said content now moved to the article following it's unprotection. I hope the article as it now stands avoids the previous issues that led to its being speedily deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff that has been added in is of a purely factual nature and wherever possible has had a tag/ref added to it to give credibility. Guy Manning —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

COI tag
Many edits from User:GuyManning - might be the subject, might not, but it's noteworthy. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:GuyManning is pretty definitely Guy Manning in person. However, reviewing the edits Mr Manning has made, none of them seem the slightest bit contentious to me. OK, perhaps he should have discussed them on the Talk page first (as recommended at WP:CONFLICT), but they've been really straightforward things so far (adding a full discography and an infobox). It seems to me that such a tag is only appropriate if there are edits that threaten the page's neutrality, accuracy etc. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree on the facts available here, although a few more refs might be nice both here and in the album articles that are sprouting. Nonetheless, it's a pretty blatant breach of WP:COI and especially WP:AUTO. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello It is User:GuyManning here, I have just added (As above) purely factual stuff in - that is all. If you do not want it in there, then take it out or suggest things that you would want adding in. There are loads of references, reviews, interviews which relate to these albums etc out there on the Net


 * It seems to me that all the edits Guy Manning has made to this article so far are consistent with WP:AUTO as they are uncontentious facts or formatting issues. I've just re-read WP:AUTO and I'm sorry but I can't see how this is a "pretty blatant breach" of it. Two other editors, i.e. myself and AndrewHouse, are happy with the edits made. Therefore, I feel WP:COI has been satisfied and that there is nothing in the current article of contention because of COI issues. Thus, I propose removing the tag, but will leave time for further comment before doing so. Mr Manning also seems to indicate above awareness of these guidelines. As to separate album articles, I realise there is endless debate on Wikipedia about when such are and are not appropriate, but I'll leave that for those articles' Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote "pretty blatant breach" because the in-a-nutshell summary of WP:AUTO reads "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact."
 * I'm happy to assume good faith, but this article is not well referenced and is therefore difficult to verify. Would it be better if it had more references? I think so, yes. Would it fit better with our policies and guidelines if it were edited by neutral third parties? Again, I think it would. I don't say that we should delete the work here, but I think it's reasonable for us to be open about the contributions being made by the subject.
 * I'm not saying anyone has done anything wrong, only that the best way to avoid the risk of a misunderstanding is to be very forthright. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A longer reading of WP:AUTO suggests to me nothing egregious about Guy Manning's editing of this article with respect to that guideline. The COI tag is not meant as a simple mark that the subject of the article has edited it: rather, it warns that the content of the article may not comply with policy, particularly with respect to neutral point of view. I see no problem with the current article content on those grounds, so I am removing that tag. You have raised a separate issue about citations, so I will add the tag about that. Meanwhile, there is another way of tagging Talk pages to indicate that the article subject is active as an editor, which I am adding now. Feel free to reverse these changes if you disagree with my reasoning. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's right for one or two of us to waive guidelines based on our own reading of the article as it stands at a particular point in time. I think that behaviour will tend to erode the value and standing of the guidelines and policies. It seems akin to saying" Yes, I did drive at 70 in a 40 zone, but I didn't hit anything so I can't be charged." That said, I don't feel strongly enough to change your edits. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely not saying we should waive guidelines. I think the edits Guy Manning made are consistent with WP:AUTO if you read it in depth, but accept that can be debated. However, the key point is about the COI tag, where I feel you have misinterpreted how it should be used. The COI tag is not meant to be used as a "speeding ticket" for GuyManning; rather, the tag on an article is meant to flag up possible problems with the article content. I see no problems with the present article content in that regard: the edits GuyManning made were straightforward and both you and I have reviewed them and don't see a problem with them. Ergo, I do not believe the COI tag is appropriate. I have tagged this Talk page so that editors can quickly see that GuyManning is Guy Manning and is an active Wikipedian. I have also tagged the main article page to reflect your other concern about the paucity of citations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Given considerable substantial content has more recently been added to this article by User:GuyManning, I have re-added the COI tag until such time as other editors can appropriately check the additions. They do not appear to be problematic to me, but I think it would be better if several other editors looked through them. Mr Manning, you may want to suggest additions on this Talk page and let someone else add them; see WP:AUTO for advice on dealing with a Wikipedia page about yourself. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to refer to the BIOGRAPHY on my official website - www.guymanning.com as there is plenty of source material there. Plus on that site, independant reviews & interviews etc. Guy MANNING —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life
Please do not add personal details on to my WIKI page unless you get your facts correct which you did not. It is unnecessary in this particular case to include these at all (Guy Manning)


 * Which bit is incorrect? Rather than delete it all, why not only delete the section you believe to be untrue. Many artists and people have such information on the Wikipedia pages, as an artist of interest it seems fair to me that your family would also be of interest to any readers of the article. It appears you must agree in part, as you are happy to talk about your family in interviews here: http://www.mostlypink.nl/who-i/guymanning.htm - and in addition the interviewer must also consider it necessary to ask such questions for the sake of those interested. Also; it is not `your' page - it's everyone's. Additionally, these comments belong really on the topic's discussion page. I have added them there. MusicLeeds (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Contributions to the site by me (Guy Manning)
If there is anything controversial or not purely factual in nature, please feel free to remove I have ensured in any of my updates that the site sticks only to verifiable and relevant facts