Talk:John B. Prescott

user:Aspro's opinions
user:Aspro has stated a number of opinions without a lot of explanation.

First, the tag "Like resume" was added to the page without any explanation. On User talk:Aspro I asked:
 * "Template:Like resume" says: An article that merely summarizes the subject's career is okay, so long as it's written in a neutral tone and the subject meets the requirements for notability.
 * Please explain how or why the article is not a summary and/or is not neutral. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It goes on to say: This tag is meant for biographical articles that promote the subject. In that way, it is much like an advertisement.
 * Please explain how or why the article "promotes" the subject any more than any other biographical article does. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The reply was
 * Yes, will add some observations and comments on  your talk page. Aspro (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

At User talk:Pdfpdf: Re: message on my talk page. The prose used in the text is very much like that used in  sales, marketing and promotion. Maybe Template:Puffery would be more suitable? For example: Including the word “Successful”. As QR National got listed then 'successful' is a form of tautology and thus not needed. Then the text later on states “grew significantly as it successfully”, further on it states    “and under Mr Prescott's stewardship” rather than 'during his  term in office'  (Note: this market sector was  surging up at the time, so one could  not  expect it not to grow significantly ,  regardless of who the figure-head was, unless the figure-head was complete and utter  buffoon). The references also include rather too many primary sources connected closely to the subject, so maybe  Template:Third-party ought to be added too. It I not so much a matter of whether this person is 'notable,' as I think that goes without saying. The tag is highlighting that the article needs much cleaning up in order to keep it encyclopedic. Do you agree? Aspro (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The prose used in the text is very much like that used in sales, marketing and promotion. - That's your opinion. It is not a fact. My opinion is the exact opposite. In my opinion the article presents a series of facts, and these facts are supported by reliable sources. The facts have absolutely nothing to do with a sales and/or marketing promotions. If you disagree, please explain what it is you disagree with.


 * Maybe Template:Puffery would be more suitable? - No. Again, that's your opinion, not a fact.


 * For example: Including the word “Successful”. As QR National got listed then 'successful' is a form of tautology and thus not needed. - OK! Now we get on to some firmer ground that's not just your opinion. Well, I can see your point, but you're being rather harsh. For example, it was successful. What's the harm in saying so? If it was blue (or green), and the article said it was blue (or green), I very much doubt you'd be complaining!


 * Then the text later on states “grew significantly as it successfully”, - and your problem with this is?
 * further on it states “and under Mr Prescott's stewardship” rather than 'during his term in office' - Well, maybe, but so what? What's you real point here? Is this a case of WP:I just don't like it, or do you have a real and justifiable complaint?


 * (Note: this market sector was surging up at the time, so one could not expect it not to grow significantly, regardless of who the figure-head was, unless the figure-head was complete and utter  buffoon). - Sorry, you've lost me.
 * The references also include rather too many primary sources connected closely to the subject, - Arrant nonsense! If you really believe this, then explain yourself. (i.e. The annual reports of listed ASX companies are NOT "primary sources"!)
 * so maybe Template:Third-party ought to be added too. - Far too vague. Explain yourself please.


 * It I not so much a matter of whether this person is 'notable,' as I think that goes without saying. - Thank heaven for that! Good grief, the man is a n AC. I have no idea why you bothered to mention notability!!


 * The tag is highlighting that the article needs much cleaning up in order to keep it encyclopedic. - Goodness gracious me. So at last we get to the REAL point of your comments. Well, I don't want to be rude, but had you looked you might have realised that I have put CONSIDERABLE effort in trying to "clean up" the article whilst warding off paid editors who want to turn the article into a puff piece. Sadly, I have my limitations. Any actual help you would like to contribute (rather than the addition of useless templates) would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * These tags are not directed at any individual editor but at the article. These tags 'alert' other editors who love to spend a few hours cleaning up such articles. For instance: Category:Articles_with_wikipuffery directs them to articles that may contain puffery for them to clean up. As I mentioned on you talk page:   “two or more heads are better than one, so you can always leave a note on my talk page if you are finding that you are having another non-productive discussion with and image up-loader.” That goes for  suspected  paid-editor additions also. By unilaterally deleting tags placed by other editors and without full discussion  you are blinding other editors who maybe able to aid you. Tis the wikiway that we work together. Aspro (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Paid editors
This page is continually being changed by paid editors who are not adding any information, and in many cases are removing information. Some of them are socks who are reintroducing previously reverted edits. In general, they all appear to be working from the same pre-prepared script which has been supplied to them. (In fact, one of them actually offered to supply me with a copy of this MSword file, but they never did.) In addition, some of them keep uploading copyright images and the most recent is now asserting that they themselves took the photo. What can be done to prevent this? On which page(s) should I be initiating discussion and action on these issues? (With thanks in advance), Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For sockpuppetry, see WP:SPI. For general paid editing concerns see WP:COIN. For copyright concerns about images, WP:FFD is the appropriate venue. If you think the article's integrity is compromised and protection is needed, WP:RFPP is the appropriate noticeboard, but that will likely only be done as a last resort since it stops everyone from editing. There's also WP:ANI to bring such issues to admins' attention. Please note that accusations of sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing should come with evidence. Huon (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Upload of copyright images
To date (5 Oct 2017) there have been four attempts to upload copyright images of John Prescott. For more information, visit the deletion request pages on Commons listed below. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)