Talk:John Ince

This reads like a resume/vanity page. If he's actually notable at all (which I'm not convinced he particularly is), this article needs major cleaning up to remove the starry-eyed tone. Exploding Boy 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with what you said, and from looking back at the history it looks like this page is about a completely different person what it originaly was about. Hence it has been turned into a resume/vanity page. With all of the new eiditing being done by just one person, so as such I'll be reverting it back to the last edit before this person changed it. Mathmo 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If anybody else would like to show why this other person is notable (who has an entire lengthy article written by just one person, hence rasing doubts purely from the aspect), it should most probably get it's own page elsewhere. Because it is different person to whom this article was originaly about (who does have some degree of notability as a leader of a political party and writer etc...). Mathmo 03:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if either John Ince is notable (both people have plenty of google hits), but I've made a page for John F. Ince, moved the text over, reverted this article and added disambiguation text. So everyone should be happy :> Marasmusine 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers again, although you could then enter into the debate of which should have the main John Ince, depends on which you think is the less non-notable of the two... ;p Not that I think it is really worthwhile going through google to work out the answer anyway. Mathmo 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately something new has come to my eye, all the changes to this other John Ince come from User:Zeke_Daniels. Due to other factors, namely this is the only editing at all which has been done in wikipedia by this user (and the persistence the user has shown in reverting back to their form of the aritlce), this appears to be a clear case of vanity editing. Mathmo 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)