Talk:John Graham-Cumming

Deletion
The deletion claims:


 * Proposed deletion. You removed the PROD tag. Thanks! That's how the system is supposed to work. :)

1. Subject is NN security researcher


 * Subject of article makes no claim to be security researcher; description is 'programmer'


 * Ok, s/security researcher/programmer. Argument stands.


 * Fair enough

2. Subject used own SPA account


 * Subject appears to have made some edits to own article, but extensive edits made by others.


 * The subject himself and 1 anonymous IP editor, which has only ever edited this page and may in fact be the author, account for 80%+ of the content on the page. The "extensive" edits from others are mechanical --- cats, AWB, bot, etc.


 * Ah yes, good point about the anonymous IPs

3. No references


 * Article has extensive references to sources


 * No, the article has extensive inline links to commercial websites. This article cites not one reliable source. On Wikipedia, notability (a requirement for articles) is established with significant reliable independent sources. --- tqbf  14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I've now read the reliable source stuff, looks like you are right and this article needs some other good links.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.31.9 (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The system works!
The anonymous editor was right to strip off the PROD tag; I got set off when I went to add the references section to the article, found that the article had no real references, and then saw that it was WP:AUTO. But a quick news search shows that an AfD would fail here, since the subject has been covered for antispam work pretty extensively (for instance, at BBC).

This article badly needs real references, but I'm not on a crusade to delete it.

--- tqbf 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO Tag
The primary cleanup that this tag is asking for is for content about the subject that isn't itself notable be removed.

--- tqbf 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Data errors?
We have an anon who would like to say:


 *  After the release of data by the Met Office following the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident he found errors in the data which were subsequently confirmed by the Met Office  . 

The first two links are to his blog: taht is fine for his opinions, but not for facts. The third doesn't appear to mention him: there is nothing to connect that to him, that I can see William M. Connolley (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't it the case that his blog quotes emails received directly from the UK's Met Office stating that he found the problems? I see that they have not publically acknowledged his contribution, but aren't the emails from the UK Met Office enough? They have acknolwedged the problems he found, but seem not to have decided to follow thru on there committment to say that he found them. 98.234.187.26 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The blog reproduces some text. Who knows where he got that text from? He could have made it up. But one blokes blog is not a RS for anything, other than that blokes opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand now, thank you. I will not put that section back unless I can find an authoratative link that verifies that he was the one that found the errors in the data.  I assume that when you say "He could have made it up" that you arent actually accusing him of lying? 98.234.187.26 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No at all (well, except in the very minor sense that we can't take his word for it. In the 18 century that would probably have been an insult deserving of a duel to settle the question, but we alas live in debased times) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * JohnGC.jpg