User talk:GregJackP/Archive 2

deletions
Greg, you've been doing heroic work find problematic articles, and most of your deletion requests are excellent, & Ive been deleting the articles. However, you really should make an effort to check for sources, at least in google News Archive, if it appears from the face of the article there is some chance of notability. and remember, please, that BLP PROD is only for use when there are no references at all to verify any of the basic facts that might be relevant to notability -- they don't have to be good enough RSs to meet WP:GNG. And one other thing: if it sounds at all like a press release, check for copyvio, and add that to any other reasons for speedy--it's more important and less debatable than questions of notability. About half the time, articles for unknown performers and the like turn out to be copies from their web page or the like.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you DGG, I appreciate it. I try to check the above (plus GBooks/GScholar) before any deletion request, whether CSD, PROD, and AFD.  I was under a different impression for BLPPRODs though - I was operating under the idea that if there were no references listed in the article for a BLP, then it was to be tagged for BLPPROD, and that once a reference was added, the the BLPPROD tag was to be removed.  I based this on the procedure listed in WP:BLPPROD that was recently changed to require the reference in the article itself.  I'll also be careful to look for copyvios.  Again, thanks for your comments - I appreciate it. GregJackP (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are referring to . This section is still disputed.  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I was under the impression that it was already Wiki policy.  Thanks.  GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be a sad day when it becomes WP policy that the mere dispute over the reliability of a source is reason enough to delete an article. The place to resolved such disputes is afd, or if more focused discussion is needed, at the RS noticeboard.  DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * btw, you apparently did not check Park Steward Robert O. Binnewies in google News -- 3 NYTimes articles on the first page of results, one primarily about him.  In my opinion, which may not be uniformly shared, a reference to a published book  by the subject defeats BLP Prod -- but that's hardly necessary as the reason here.  DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

15th Regiment Alabama Infantry
Might I trouble you, please, to return to 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, and re-rate it based upon it being pretty much finished, now? I know that when you initially rated it "start" class, it wasn't at all complete; since I've gotten it done, I'd appreciate a reassessment, if you have the time to give a new one. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your nomination for "DYK?"! I got the references insterted; let me know what you think!  Thanks for your time and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that (the B-class rating!)! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spaceduck
Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted your (second) reversion to this article - you originally restored a deleted speedy tag and then thought better of it. I'm pretty sure the editor who deleted it is a sockpuppet of the author, so I felt that the tag should stay. BTW it's already been speedied once today as a hoax. Cheers. andy (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. It seemed to me to be a hoax, but I saw the talkpage comments and did not have time to check it out, so I reverted my restoration of the CSD until I could figure it out.  GregJackP (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I don't want to oppose you. I understand your reasons for deleting the photo evidence, and I agree with you more or less. But I just wanted to make it clear that the article is not a "hoax", as Andy has been chanting and as others have been quick to parrot. If you would help me by suggesting what needs to be done, then maybe we can improve the article together. Sound fair? Chazella (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, while it "may be" real, it may also be a hoax. Additionally, Spaceduck has not shown that he meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.  I have no interest in improving the article, it is not an area that I'm really concerned with.  I am, however, interested in the integrity of Wikipedia and making sure that all articles meets the appropriate standards.  If you wish to help keep the article, I would suggest finding verifiable and reliable sources that show notability.  Good luck. GregJackP (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:MUSICBIO: The artist is notable if he "has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." That's the whole point of me dwelling on the BBC documentary. Please, take an hour to watch the documentary. You may even be entertained, even if you're not a fan of the cello. Chazella (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Spaceduck
An article that you have been involved in editing, Spaceduck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP

I appreciate the response about my article. Is there any way that I can receive the original article so that I can make it Wiki-Approved?

Thanks, Dcolyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcolyr (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi GregJackP, Zunco is a well known company in Colombia. Through wikipedia is possible to channel this recognition. The article does not contain commercial references and all information contained tries to be as objective as possible. The article has less than 24 hours of set up and all edits made so far tend to convey information in a clear and transparent. Please help me improve my work without having to remove it.

Speedy deletion nomination of Zunco


A tag has been placed on Zunco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dacelas (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ==

Here I sent some samples of the recognition of the mark in the Latin market. These are articles from various newspapers in which they emphasize the use of industrial materials for the manufacture of handbags and employment generation in poor areas of Bogota.


 * Sitio Web de Zunco Accesorios
 * De la talega a la cartera - www.elespectador.com
 * Zunco: concepto artesanal que nació en las plazas de mercado hoy es moda colombiana en el exterior - www.portafolio.com.co
 * Un negocio convencional no tradicional - www.dinero.com

GERYES TAXI
Re. Articles for deletion/GERYES TAXI / GERYES TAXI

No need for AfD for things like that; CSD would've been fine as G11 again.

Gone now, anyway; just wanted to let you know for future reference - to avoid unnecessary AfD's. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Don Martin (public affairs consultant)‎ PROD removal
It is now incumbent upon you to improve the article, otherwise the PROD can be re-established. moreno oso (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you review Proposed deletion. First, the article was prodded for notability, yet there were 29 references.  The references show that he is clearly notable.  Second, I have no responsibility to do anything with the article.  Third, once a prod has been contested, it may not be re-established on the article's page, you have to go to a full AfD discussion.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mis-issue me another warning, I will consider that a WP:NPA. And, it can have ramifications. moreno oso (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Morenooso, I'd recommend taking another cool-down away from the computer. I've already notified GregJackP that he misused the template, and this sort of response isn't helping the situation. Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Morenooso, you may want to re-check WP:NPA and WP:AGF, as well as the other relevant policies of Wikipedia. You can consider it whatever you want, but there was no personal attack involved.  You may also want to look at your own actions, as far as being confrontational with anyone that disagrees with you.  Wikipedia uses consensus - try being more open to others opinions.  Regards. GregJackP (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs
Please be careful when proposing articles for deletion as unsourced BLPs. In the case of Lewis Linford(actor), the article made unsourced, negative claims about its subject (ie that the subject was arrested) and so qualified for deletion under CSD G10 and should have gone a lot sooner than it did. Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Amén =
Hi thanks for your message about the article of Amén, I changed some important things now, put some links to prove the statements at the beginning ! Would like to have your opinion! --Sunlight14 (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Don Martin (Austin, Texas)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Don Martin (Austin, Texas) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK   20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AGK, I have declined to participate in mediation. I do not believe that it was appropriate nor fair for you to take sides with only limited information from the individual who filed the request.  Whether or not the intent is to stay neutral, it would be more appropriate to hear from more than one party before sending the matter to AN/I, and it gives the appearance of favoritism.  If another mediator were to take the case, I would reconsider, especially since I believe there is consensus for the section as written.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg. Thanks for your comments. My referral of the dispute to ANI for administrator attention was not in any way a judgment of the dispute or of its participants, including yourself. As I'm sure you know, BLPs such as the Don Martin article must be treated with more sensitivity than the average article; this applies doubly so when the subject of the biography has expressed a concern or filed a complaint, as Don Martin did at the request for mediation page. Upon observing that the subject had complained about the edits made to the article, it was necessary for me to ask an administrator to evaluate the article and the dispute (with a view to remedying any problems therein). I stress that this was not an expression of support for any one side to the dispute, but rather a knee-jerk reaction upon observing that there potentially has been problematic treatment of a BLP article. You should also know that my decision to flag the article for administrator investigation was essentially in my capacity as an editor; the only reason that I didn't look into the conduct of the contributors to the article (I'm also an administrator) was that I was probably going to have to accept or reject the request at a later point. Additionally, know that I will at no point be the editor who mediates the dispute; my involvement in the RFM was as the person designated to vet RFMs for suitability for mediation (as outlined at WP:Mediation Committee). I would stress again that I have not prejudged the facts of the dispute, and ask you to reconsider your declination to participate. I've watchlisted your talk page, so I'll see any further comments you make; and I will of course respond to any questions or counterpoints that you make. Regards, AGK   20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi GregJackP; thanks for informing me about the failed attempt to contact me for mediation. I've taken the appropriate measures to correct my name on the mediation page and sign the register now. Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AGK, thank you for letting me know what your thoughts were on this - it clarifies the process for me, as this was the 1st RfM that I have been involved in. I understand the need and requirement to be extremely careful with BLP articles, and try to keep that in mind when editing such articles.  In the instant case, I believe that the RfM is a moot issue - SheffieldSteel, the admin who handled the AN/I matter came and looked at the matter thoroughly.  He proposed new text for the disputed section, and a clear consensus was reached on the content issue using his text.


 * It seemed as this was attempt to keep properly sourced and cited material out of a BLP article merely due to the negative nature of the material. As the consensus content was substantially the same as the material that I had posted (abeit written in a much clearer and concise manner), it seems to me that those feelings have been validated.


 * I was also frustrated, as there seemed to be a clear case of sockpuppetry by the subject of the article - myself, Giftiger, and Minor4th had all come to the same conclusion and I was about to start an SPI when the content matter was resolved. I would rather not do that now, the accounts involved are primarily SPAs, focused on the article in question and related articles.


 * If you could let me know if I should go back to the RfM and agree, or if can just be closed as been resolved, I would appreciate it. GregJackP (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I call it a night
I don't have time to act on this myself until tomorrow, but I thought you might be interested in knowing that evidence has emerged that Dmartinaus is a sockpuppet of Austin, and most likely the individual responsible is in fact Don Martin. This was made evident by the fact that Austin claimed that I removed his comments, when I removed two personal attacks, both left by Dmartinaus. At some point tomorrow I will probably compile some evidence and file a sock puppet report, and possibly ask for checkuser confirmation as it may be necessary in this case. I thought I'd let you know in case you would like to file this report sooner. Unfortunately it's getitng late here and I have a university examination tomorrow morning, so I may not be able to act on this for a while.

I'd suggest you review the evidence before submitting ay reports though, of course. If you choose to file a report I'll add any additional evidence to it appropriate whenever I get chance.

Thanks,

<font color="#900000">Giftiger <font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   [TALK]  22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed wiki page for Khan Manuel
Hello GregJackP

I have added certain citations about Khan Manuels notability mainly that his album went to #2 and #1 slots... on the talk page it goes into more detail... please take a look on the talk page for Khan Manuel.

The issues that were pointed to have been fixed on the page as well. In addition to the notability here is a link to a preview of a recording of Manuel and also World renowned guitarist Frank Gambale.

http://www.truthinshredding.com/2010/05/frank-gambalekhan-manuel-when-two.html

Biography issues have also been looked at.

Warm regards, Guitarmania01 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dhanmondi Ideal College
Noticed the article and your edits while doing hangon patrolling and I just have to comment that in light of its other fine attributes, it's a shame that Dhanmondi Ideal College obviously doesn't have an English Department... Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When I tagged it for deletion, I felt a tinge of sadness that some future college student might miss out on the "Powerful generator" or the "Garden with lot of Beautiful Flower". Clearly, Dhanmondi "Ideal" College could use a marketing department as well. 95j (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Don Martin (Austin, Texas), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Cory Allen (Musician)
Hello GregJackP, I am new to editing Wiki articles. I modified the article in reference to the AfD discussion request that the article have references added. I thought since references were added which indisputably verified information and notability that the it was OK to remove the deletion tag. I'm new here and want to add a lot of articles - for future reference, can you tell my why, if the initial reason for proposing deletion was satisfied, it is not OK to remove the deletion tag? Thanks! Lotusleaves (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An AfD discussion is a formal process to determine if an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and runs until an administrator closes it. Second, the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.  #1 (thesoundprojector) is a trivial, one paragraph mention and is not a reliable source (blog).  #2 (tokafi) is not a reliable source (as covered at WP:RS), although it is more in depth.  #3 (cory-allen.com) is self-published and not reliable nor independent.  #4 (quiet design) is self-published and not reliable nor independent.  #5 (the wire) does not mention the subject of the article.  #6 (cyclicdefrost) may or may not be reliable, but only mention Allen in passing (trivial).  Notability has not been established, nor are the references "indisputably" reliable.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I disagree with how you've applied the guidelines of triviality or notability, and for some reason seem to be recreationally coarse in trying to keep an artist that sells thousands of CDs and runs a record label out of the information banks of the public, a feature in print in a physical copy of Wire Magazine Issue #303, May 2009 is sitting here next to me. Although you don't accept the other (what seem to me very clear via the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines ) references to facts of this article, this one is unquestionably indisputable. In what way does this in-print feature need to be displayed and referenced in order to satiate your view of notability? Cheers, Lotusleaves (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Until just now, you never cited Issue #303 of Wire Magazine. You cited Issue #310, which did not mention Allen.  Based on what you have cited as other refs, I would have to see the article to even begin to look like it really was a valid ref. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How close did you look at those reference links? One issue was a year round up which contained a reprint of the original article. Peace.Lotusleaves (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

 * Comment I've already started an incident for this article based on the proprietary way you and others are handling it, which is a violation of WP:Ownership as well as WP: NPOV and WP:COI. I welcome you to bring anything I have done to a supe so they can see what has been going on. I will continue to edit the article to meet Wiki standards as right now it reads like a PR "pump" vanity piece for the guy rather than a Wikipedia article about facts. As it stands, the article itself is being used to promote a private business, and one that helps corporations alter the public mood to allow for development. I would also caution you to stop focusing on me and focus on content, as the Wikipedia policy clearly states. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * 'Forgive my interruption GregJackP, but Nightmare please show me where the the incident report is filed and point me to a "supe" because I darn sure would like to go over in detail the numerous false accusations you have made about the citation articles, about me, about the validity of the book, about alledged collusion, and about advertising as well as highly inappropriate and false edits you have made without discussion. ' Dmartinaus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not dump your warnings on my page. You've previously been warned by an admin to stop.  Please do so. GregJackP (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove comments from my user talkpage. GregJackP (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copies of all reference articles provided here for vetting



 * Fortunately these can actually be skimmed rather easily and quickly.  I added one note only (in green) as a preface to certain articles without editorializing, and I highlighted the relevant Don Martin sections in red to make it easy to find them quickly by skimming.  In reviewing the articles I now think that reference 9 can probably be deleted and replaced by 15;  and 25 can probably be deleted in favor of 26.  Please do let me know if you have looked at the web page.   Don Martin   Dmartinaus (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins/GA1
Article is about done (unless something else comes up). Very fast review indeed - and very helpful comments which did push it to higher quality. Thank you!

There are a couple of points left for you with comment, on the GA review page. I cited a little more exactly than might be usual in order to better comply with the aims of WP:V and WP:CITE. I've explained the reason on that page.

Thanks. FT2 (Talk 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cites updated, thanks. FT2 (Talk 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment re Nightmare
Sarah - One last comment re Nightmare, and not being overly accusatory but just stating the undeniable truth: Rememeber he is the one who said in no uncertain terms that "many of the articles in the references do not even mention Martin at all." That statement was made up out of thin air and has conclusive been proven false with the posting of every article. He also attacked the validity of the book and my authorship, also subsequently proven false. Now he is asking for a second Afd. It appears to me that he has a strong bias for killing the article through numerous allegations, with a disregard as to accuracy of his allegations. I am fine, however, with his continued attempts to clean up the article, remove bias or advertising, so long as the edits are accurate. Jeesie's edits show several such edits by Nightmare were inaccurate. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I would ask that the edits NOT be reverted until everyone (you, Nightmare, Sara) check them for acuracy against Nightmares edits of the article. Thanks Dmartinaus (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP Reversions 6/15/10
First, GJP and I are absolutely not related. In fact were the most bitterest of enemies (no offense JGP) during the lawsuit debate. See Archive 1 or ask User:Minor4th for backup on this. Here is my feedback on your changes and reversions: 1) Remove "walk friendly" village term. AGREE'  Although note it is in the title of the article and is not MY term. 2) Revert changes to lawsuit langage. AGREE 3) Remove Ital from DMPA heading.   AGREE 4) Request cite re size of real estate development. AGREE 5) Request cite on Legi/Slate.    Well...Nightmare removed both cites on this.  But I'll AGREE and seek out a better cite if you wish.  This is perhaps THE most significant event in the article in my opinion, and another editor suggested it should be it's own article as well, but I don't have enough citations from 1980 to do that.  Dmartinaus (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin
An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.


 * See my comments onthe main article talk page. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Luis Garcia-Fanjul and the copyvio template
Hi,

Just a note about the above, the copyvio template is meant for text copyright issues only. Any non-text media should be handled according to the instructions at Possibly unfree files instead. Regards, MLauba (Talk) 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jessi0421 Edits to Donald G. Martin page
GregJackP I absolutely understand your concerns. I am also going to copy this to Sarah's page where Nightmare has suggested placing an Afd for purposes of killing the article once and for all. Re your concerns: 1) Sarah and I discussed the issues of 4084BT previously and 4804BT backed out.    As for austin3301 he admitted earlier to being too close to the subject overall (and I beleive he said too "heated") and recused himself from editing, and indicated that most if not all of his edits have already been reverted by others.   But as to Jesse0421 I have my suspicions who this is and if so he does in fact know me from a PREVIOUS employee relationship from several years ago -- not recent --  but we have ABSOLUTELY not in ANY way communicated about editing the piece or about edits to make.  In fact we have NEVER EVEN discussed the page at all although he may well have heard about it in general through others.  There is absolutely no collusion and no relationship betwen myself and him.. However I certainly understand that as someone who knows me and my history pretty well that he has tried to make both favorable edits, but also edits for accuracy. The edits I saw seemed A) fairly neutral to me, B) they clean up up obvious basic errors that other editors could not have known C)he explained the rationale of each and every edit and said that they are welcome to be reverted and D) that these conclude all of the edits he was going to make.

I think we are really down to you, me, Nightmare and perhaps Sarah on finishing the article, plus these one set only of recent edits from Jesse0421 offered in the spirit of cleaing up items he is aware of. I have not review them closely but the don't appear to me to "favor" me or add advertising as Nighmare purports. Admittedly I am biased but I honesstly don't see that ANY of them add an advertising interest that NIghtmare alledges. I'll go bck and look and if they do I'll recommend they be changed. Several correct significant errors by Nightmare in his editing (EXAMPLE:  changed to "wrote' book versus 'published" book - I was not the publisher; Arcadia Publishing was). I'd like to hear your take on the actual edits. If any of them need to be reverted for some reason then they definitely should be reverted. I am concerned however that Nightmare is unwilling to accept ANY edits that are not his and is working behind the scenes to kill the page as indicated in writing above. We've come too far for that I hope. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Sorry to butt in on your talk page GregJackP, but wanted to address Dmartinaus on this issue. 4084BT lists an email address on his user talk page that indicates his name is "Ray Henry." If I remember correctly, that is the same name that Austin disclosed as his "real" name (but it's been a while). Both Austin and 4084 have made edits and either signed your name or have spoken in the first person as if they were in fact Don Martin, as opposed to someone who knows him. See here and here and here for 4084BT edits, one of which is signed "Don Martin". See here and here and here for Austin3301 edits in which Austin complains of his edits being reverted and then rewords them, when it was actually Dmartinaus' edits that had been reverted. Also, see here and here for Austin edit/revision that appears to be made by a Don Martin persona. These edits are troubling to me because several editors interacted with Dmartinaus, Austin3011 and 4048BT in the course of AfD discussion, talk page extended discussion and much haggling over editing. NineteenNightmares got blocked as a result of some of those discussions, presumably because he got so frustrated. I do not know how to do a sock puppet investigation or if this is the type of scenario that warrants it, but this is troubling.

GregJackP, you have much more experience than I do on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts about how to proceed or is this an issue that should be left alone? And with respect to Dmartinaus, if I have drawn the wrong conclusion, I apologize. If I have not drawn the wrong conclusion -- I still understand the stress and angst involved in having an article written about you that you feel is painting you in a bad light or is not accurate. I would not want to be in your shoes. Minor4th (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor - I understand your questioning this and especially about Austin3301 (who is NOT me but is someone close to me who got all hot and bothered in the lawsuit discussion -- a fairly sensitive subject to many -- and who actually admitted and revealed on the talk page previously that he had a conflict of interest and dropped out of all discussions and editing. He was not a very good editor eeither about his identity.  Sarah and I have also discused the 4804BT situation involving dual use of an office computer.  As a result both are completely gone and not editing or commenting.  Rather than sockpuppetry this was probably a very valid case of "meatpuppetry" I am told.  The latest addition, however, Jessie 0421, I am about 90% sure is someone who used to work for me several years ago and who knows my history but who has not been contacted me in any way about this. I have not contacted him, and we have not spoken or discussed edits or interests of any kind in any form or fashion.  Also I have not solicited anyone to register or to make edits or votes in support of me. (It's no secret around the office that I have been upset and frustrated about the article having mistakes etc. so I guess it is not surprising that this may have eventually gotten to someone like Jessie0421, who perhaps knows  abit about editing Wikipedia, who wanted to help entirely on their own).   But I have not even tried to check as to who it is because I don't want to establish a connection.    Absolutely no one is involved at this time that I know of related to me in any way. As for Dmartinaus, that is me, Don Martin, and always has been.  I have had voluminous discussions on the talk page, but am not editing. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS, I am surprised but humored to learn about the use of Ray Henry.  "Ray L. Henry" is a name we have used around the office for years for a ficticious charachter relating to the Austin American-Statesman.  May not be humours to you but was a fuuy surprise to read in your comments above for me.      Meanwhile I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.   This has been a bit of a comedy of errors.  Also, Austin 3001 and 4804BT can certainly be blocked from further editing if you all this it necessary, and I suppose (but would hate to be silenced about my own article) but I can be blocked as well if you all so decide.  Dmartinaus (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor4th, I initiated an SPI on this, but it's not hard to do. If you go to WP:SPI, it has step by step instructions.  You need to make sure that you have good evidence on this, like what you outlined above, and include it on the investigation request.  I hope this helps. GregJackP (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Minor4th (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Martin SPI
Thank you very much for starting that report. I have been considering doing so myself but have been so busy of-site that I just haven't had the time. I think it's important that there's at least a formal record of the issues with these accounts especially with the strange business happening at the AFD. I have added some more diffs, mostly relating to the AFD where they all participated and voted according to what Martin wanted (first when he said he was happy for it to be deleted, they were voting delete, then when he changed his mind and wanted it kept, they did too and at one point he even tried to remove a comment which was made by one of the other accounts). In addition, I noticed the message above re reviewer rights and I noticed that you didn't have rollback rights so I have turned them on for you, too. You can read about it on the WP:ROLLBACK page but please just be aware that it should only be used on vandalism and very obviously unacceptable edits and any administrator can turn it off if they think that you're not using properly. Cheers, Sarah 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was considering asking for rollback rights, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. It is much appreciated.  GregJackP (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Final Coments re Maintaining Accuracy

 * GregJackP - this may be my final opportunity before getting blocked to more concisely list the reasons for my concerns about Ninteen Nightmare's edits.   But first a Disclosure: This is Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I appreciate the name change by Balloonman as the way it was before did indeed raise questions.  The previous name Don Martin (public affairs), however, was created by another major editor, Orangemike, not me even though Nightmare implies that I named it that way in order to advertise my company. See edit below  In fact I vocally and strenously supported the new name change and challenged Nightmare to please change it.


 * 15:25, 4 June 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) m (14,349 bytes) (moved Don Martin (Austin, Texas) to Don Martin (public affairs): naming conventions)


 * Based on comments from Nightmare recently on Balloonman's page and elsewhere, I feel compelled one more time to reiterate that the reason for the difficult editing situation is not just me. I have been difficult, I admit.  But it has been substantial, long-time editors like yourself and Minor4th who have reverted many of Nightmares edits.  The reason is simple:  Nightmare has continued, as far as I can ascertain, to simply "make up" so-called facts to support his own purposes in killing the page (in fact he has so stated in a quote that his purpose is to "kill the page") presumably I am guessing because he disagreed with the Afd decision.  His edits are nearly all incorrect and needed correcting.  Here are a few examples:


 * Questioned (very rudely) if the "Austin" book was really a book, and whether I was really it's author. Called it a "just a book of pretty pictures" and questioned if I had gotten paid for the use of the postcards and not as an author (when he could have easily done a Google search of Arcadia Publishing to get the answers to all of those questions).  I even provided my book editor's name and phone number to him but he did not follow up.)
 * Accused the book of being "just a a vanity book" and that vanity books "often" appear on Amazon.  The book is in fact listed on ALL major on-line bookstores as well as from a very legitimate publisher (they are NOT a vanity press), Arcadia Publishing.
 * Said that my company (Don Martin Public Affairs) did not belong on an article about Don Martin "the man", and that I was "purposefully gaming Wikipedia for advertising." Seems to me that it would be hard to write any article on an individul without mentioning the name of his company.   Especially so in my case where I own the company and it carries my name.
 * Told me that there was "Wikipedia policy" against listing clients in the article (I provided numerous examples of other consultant articles with clients listed). Also said the list of clients was "exhaustive" when in fact it is far less than 10% of the PRIMARY clients listed on my web site.
 * Said I was essentially "advertising to sell land" re the real estate project I did and implied that it was not significant to the article (It is in fact the second largest mixed-use project in the Austin metro area at approximately 5 MILLION "built-out" square feet, and is financed by Texas billionaire Ed Bass .  But more importantly, it was completed in 2008 and there is nothing to sell, so there is no benefit whatsoever to advertise it for sale though the article.
 * Questioned whether I was the "co-developer" of La Frontera and changed that language to diminish that title (which you reverted) when EVERY article on the subject in fact lists me as the co-developer with my long-time development partner Bill Smalling. See La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas)
 * Blatantly questioned the references to almost all of the article-based references and said flat out to everyone that the "they don't even mention Martin's name at all!"   The articles are from major daily newspapers and the like who use paid archives, so he could not have actually read the articles without a subscription.  So to assist all the editors I downloaded, at my expense, the full text of EVERY article referenced and posted them on a dedicated web site for anyone to examine.  100% of them deal significantly with Martin (i.e., "me"), and not as mere "mentions," either.   http://www.wikipedia-article-verification.com
 * Has repeatedly said the article subject is not notable. (see below)
 * Removed references by telling me that we only one reference per item is needed and that there are too many references anyway, so "not to worry." However User:Sarah told me we need MULTIPLE secondary, credible, published references to help establish notability. (PS- I have now posted many more reference articles to the web site as well for anyone to use).
 * Removed the reference entirely to a significant bio item about the newsletter I wrote and published Texas Government Newsletter
 * Lastly he showed an new interesting bias when he wrote on your own talk page that the article is "a 'PR pump' vanity piece used to promote a private business and one that helps corporations alter the public mood to allow for development." (Not true, but apparently he is against development....)
 * I could give many more examples, both large and small, where his edits are simply not factual. Since this is an article affects my business reputation, I am of course VERY concered about it being factual.  Hence his assertion to Balloonman that "the subject is clearly upset."    At least he's right on that count.  I hope you and others will continue to monitor such edits. If I return to the talkpage, it will be to a much lesser extent and simply offering ocassional suggestions. (Don Martin)   Dmartinaus (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here again is the website with the articles (Don Martin)  Dmartinaus (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PS -- Here is his "award" to Balloonman for changing the name for him  "admidst a sea of contentious editors....all getting their collective underwears in bunches."

Menominee Tribe v. U.S.
Just reviewing your recent edits to Menominee Tribe v. United States. Very good work. I wish I had your patience. Minor4th (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

About Fletch the Mighty...
This probably isn't important, but I did want to make it clear that I'm not really a new Wikipedian, this is just a new account made after a couple of years sabbatical. I know this isn't particularly important, and I'm not trying to be whiny or change your mind or whatever, I just wanted to let you know. I know it definitely changes my view if someone is saying something with a background in Wiki policy or just as an anon who doesn't know anything about it. So... like I said, it's not like I expect this to make you fall at my feet in worship or anything, but I did want to let you know. It was extremely bad timing for me to suddenly create a new account, I know! :) Fletch the Mighty (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. I'm sure you can understand since there are a multitude of SPAs and IPs commenting on the AfD. Glad you decided to come back! GregJackP (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, it's pretty obvious when people don't get that WP's policies aren't personal attacks, it's just what the rules are. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette proposal
This is a quick note to inform you that a proposal has been added to the discussion at the Wikiquette report for the user Nineteen Nightmares, which you have been previously involved. This is because a firm proposal had not yet been made. Feel free to indicate your opinions on the proposal under the appropriate heading. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#900000">Giftiger <font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   [TALK]  19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Java to UML Sequence Diagram
This article was not written with an intention to promote the tool. It was written with the intention that if someone is looking to do reverse engineering in java how can they do it. Also the article's intention is no different than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart4j.

If you think that the article needs some improvements, please write them on my talk page and I will try and make those changes. Please try to be specific. 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)
17:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin
17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Question On Admin Behavior
I am having a conflict with an admin, who has insinuated that myself and two other editors are engaging in sockpuppetry, and who has accused me of not WP:AGF while she has continually assumed bad faith on my part. Both myself and another user have attempted to discuss this with her, but she posted a notice not to put items on her talk page and to take it to an AN/I if we have a problem with it. We've asked that she either file an WP:SPI case or tell us what the basis is for her allegation, but she won't discuss it. Is there another way to handle this without a full blown AN/I? GregJackP (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no better way to piss someone off than to insist that they do something via an ultimatum. Although my typical personal rule is "file your SPI or STFU", I can see from your contributions, that the admin in question has stated she is unable to respond to this issue right now due to being busy in real life - that means that during that time, she won't make additional comments about it, will she?  She told you not to post about it for a week - not forever.  Clearly, it's not something that needs to be dealt with over the next week as well.  A quick piece of advice: when you appear to edit in close conjunction with other editors, you may occasionally be thought of as socking, or even WP:MEAT - that's going to happen, period.  What do you think ANI is going to resolve? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to go an ANI. I am concerned that she will take some form of action at some point for not WP:AGF while she has viewed everything I've done with bad faith.  I don't thing that I have done anything wrong, but I don't think that she is neutral anymore.  I just don't trust that she is impartial and fair based on her comments.  I don't think that it is fair that she can toss out accusations with impunity just because she is an admin and I'm a mere editor.  I don't think that it is fair that she can totally ignore AGF and repeatedly assume bad faith on my part, but she can assume the worst of me because she's an admin.  I don't think that it is fair that she misstates information, but that's OK, because she's an admin.  I'll get punished for stating my opinion, but that's OK, because she's an admin.  It's not right that she can try and use her position to silence her opposition.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A) What have they actually done, that breaches any policy?
 * B) What action can we take, which will help improve Wikipedia?


 * For A) please remember that it takes two people to argue. And no, adminz are certainly not immune to policies and guidelines. You seem to be claiming that this person is assuming bad faith. But in your own comments above, you are making assumptions of bad faith, too.


 * They have not blocked you. If they do, that is the time to complain.


 * B) This is the critical point - what do you want to happen? Do you want us to "tell them off" or what? Block them? That's not going to happen, because, they have not breached policies (to the best of my knowledge).


 * Please, consider your motivation in pursuing this - in what way will it help Wikipedia?


 * Best: Stay calm, drink tea, move on.


 * Edit some nice article or other - there are lots that need it.


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ► 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to roll over and play dead for the sake of politics or because she is an admin. She has assumed bad faith, ignored my attempts to resolve this, accused me of being a sock, claimed that I orchestrated a move to ban/block 19N (which you know is not true - you saw that I first took it to WQA, not to AN/I), etc. It is not appropriate for an admin to treat editors in that manner. At this point, I don't really care. I can be blocked, banned, whatever, but I intend that someone look at this and her actions. She has done everything that she is jumping on us for allegedly doing - it's hypocritical. I asked for help, but the only response seems to be to ignore it, she's an "admin." I want her to stop treating people that way. As for helping Wikipedia? If it stops her from treating others like she has me, that will help Wikipedia. GregJackP (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, as Chzz has pointed out, Sarah hasn't actually violated policy here, as far as I can tell. She is entitled to file an SPI if that is her wish, and if she chooses not to do that then that's a clear admission that there are insufficient grounds for such an action. While I have had very direct disagreements with this editor, disagreement is simply another inevitable part of the collaboration process and she has the right to produce her opinions. If you believe that she has failed to assume good faith, I would suggest leaving a polite notice about this on her user talk page (uw-agf1 would probably be appropriate, though I would recommend leaving a personalised note instead as it is likely to be better received than templating an admin on a controversial issue).
 * As for not caring if you are "blocked, banned, or whatever", I would suggest avoiding interaction with Sarah for a day or two and revisit this issue when you're calmer and thinking carefully about the issue at this point. While Sarah has certainly been very confrontational on the recent AN/I discussion, this in itself is not a violation of policy. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#900000">Giftiger <font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   [TALK]  21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Giftiger - I went ahead and templated her - she hasn't bothered to respond to previous attempts by leaving notes. GregJackP (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that she does have a notice template on her talk page that she is busy in real life and may not swiftly respond to queries. I understand that you are upset about some of her comments, but please remember that you should assume good faith as well; I'm sure that the situation is more than that "she hasn't bothered to respond". <font face="Verdana"><font color="#900000">Giftiger <font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   [TALK]  21:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that is it - the first time that I tried to work things out with her was several days ago, during the DRV and before the WQA/ANI - she ignored that, but found time to respond to 19N several times. She has since archived my post from her talkpage.  GregJackP (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as I thought - she reverted both of our comments with this statement: "reverting people who have been asked to go away (sorry but I haven't even read these - i've asked you to stop posting here, please oblige" - it is hard to believe that she even cares what mere editors think. GregJackP (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You templated her? Even though she has not violated any policy?  For something that happened a few days ago?  Are you seriously listening to any of the advice that we are providing here?  Can you provoke another editor any further?  Are you even here to edit in a consensual manner?  I think you need to take a whole whack of steps back before you do something even more ridiculous. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I do think Sarah was failing to assume good faith, but I don't think a template was appropriate here. I certainly understand why she removed GregJackP's template, but I think it's extremely rude for an administrator to dismiss the carefully-written and polite comment I left for her without reading it. She hasn't violated policy in doing so and she has a right to remove anything she likes from her talk page, but this certainly indicates to me that attempts to reason are in vain. GregJackP, my advice to you is to do what I plan to do: avoid future contact. If you don't like a user's comments, administrator or otherwise, and reasoning fails, just sever contact and be done with it. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#900000">Giftiger <font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   [TALK]  11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BWilkens, I believe that she has violated policy, and has continued to do so. She is required to AGF and hasn't done so.  I believe that her comments prove that, yet she chastises others for that very thing.  I believe that she has violated civility in that she has made ill-considered accussations of impropriety, deliberately asserting false information, and giving the impression that I hold views that I do not hold to malign me.  I believe that she has violated the admin conduct policy by failing to respond promptly and civilly about their Wikipedia-related conduct, by breach of basic policies (above), and by failure to communicate.


 * I have tried to follow the appropriate dispute resolution steps. I (and two other editors) have tried to contact her on her talk page and we were basically told to go away.  An apology for the first post that I believe she mis-interpretted was ignored.  I have asked for assistance and was told basically that I needed to get over it.  I intend to go to the next step of the DR process.


 * As far as being here to be productive? I have over 6,000 edits, a DYK, and 2 GAs.  I patrol new/recent pages, I have reviewer/rollback privelges, and have been a user since 2006 (although I started editing more thoroughly later than that).  I have reviewed and had articles reviewed (which as you know is sometimes a brutal process - but have not had significant conflict).  I have been in a few disagreements with other editors and admins, and have always been able to work things out in a collegial manner.  Sometimes it went my way, sometimes not, but that's how it is supposed to work.  I strongly believe in consensus and providing a fair and open discussion on issues.  The recent DRV on Don Martin is an example - I would have preferred that it be relisted, but the overwhelming consensus went the other way.  I believe that we are all human and make mistakes, say things in a way that can be mis-intrepreted, and that when one does so, they should apologize and try to set things right.  I have done that several times when I was wrong, and I tried to clarify it when she was upset about a comment that I made that was mis-interpreted.


 * I have never been treated like that by an admin here, and do not think it is appropriate. If it is "something even more ridiculous," then so be it, and I will have learned that perhaps Wikipedia is not what I thought it was, a collegial, cooperative effort to create an outstanding on-line encyclopedia.  If the questioning of an admin's behavior by a mere editor is not acceptable, then I'll find that out shortly, but I am willing to do so (understanding the risks to me of banning or being blocked) because I do not feel that the behavior was appropriate.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have initiated a Request for Comment / User on Sarah at her name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at    :Requests for comment/Sarah, where any interested parties may participate.

GregJackP (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD: Abigail Bakan
Since you earlier stated your agreement with prodding this article you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Abigail Bakan. Be in Nepean (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD: Darrin McGillis
Can I get you to look at the nomination of Darrin McGillis you voted delete but since your vote several people have posted sources of info. Can you check it out again and change your vote to Keep. Thank you.--98.242.241.252 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your posting of libel on Mr. McGillis has been reported to Mr. Wales, how dare you libel a living person on wikipedia thats not nice--98.242.241.252 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The material was properly sourced from a Miami Herald article - completely within Wikipedia policy to refer to material that has been published by a reliable source. GregJackP (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

iT IS A BLOG NOT THE MIAMI HEARLD--98.242.241.252 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't care who the governor of Florida is so long as the Emerald Coast stays pristine. I don't know any of 'em. Don't care to either. All I care about is maintaining the standards of Wikipedia, and making sure that we follow our policies. If the article stays, it is because it is notable. If it is notable, then it needs to be included, per the WP:BLP policy which states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

In this case, the material IS well-documented by a reliable source. A newspaper's blog is a reliable source. I did not add it to the article, because I don't think that McGillis is notable. However, if he is notable, then it should and will be added. My point is would the subject of the article want that negative information in the view of the public? Or would he want the whole article to go away? It doesn't matter to me, but one should consider what the subject wants. GregJackP (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, did you just say that a newspaper's BLOG is a reliable source? Only in some circumstances, and each has to be evaluated as per the link you provided! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case it is. ""Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."  See here, which was explained on the talk page in question.  See WP:NEWSBLOG which was referenced both here and there.  GregJackP (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I was saying was be careful with a blanket statement saying "a newspaper's blog is a reliable source": it's only reliable in certain situations - let's not give people the wrong idea. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't want to do that, and I didn't mean to make a blanket statement - though I can see that is what I did.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to post on the AfD, but this is probably better. First, for the sorts of claims that your describing, I'd be hard pressed to see a blog - even a newspaper's one - being sufficiently reliable to be used to support the claims of fraud and violence that you point to. Strong claims need strong sources. More importantly, though, I'm uncomfortable with the argument that you're making in the AfD that if the article is kept strongly negative material will need to be added. That's not a given, and it has a rather nasty appearance in terms of the debate. With respect, I think it might be better to stay clear of that sort of argument, and just focus on whether or not the subject is notable. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the material is germane and he is a public figure, it should be included. I have a problem with Wikipedia being used strictly for promotional purposed, paint the article rosy and bright, and sweeping negative information under the rug.  It needs to be balanced - but the blog also stated that it was reported in the print newspaper, and I would probably try to find that ref and use it instead.  I agree that refs on negative material be impeccable, and that we don't want to go to far the other way either.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if those sources exist, then he is likely to be notable. If they don't, they won't be included. Either way it shouldn't really help in an AfD - it feels wrong, as the point is to make NPOV articles, so arguing that negative material will be added comes across in the wrong light as it is both largely redundant and potentially threatening, and at best it points to a keep vote. I gather he's pulled out of the race, though, so this is likely to be a non-issue in the end. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * mcgillis music artist why should this page stay? Can you Afd it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dymo400 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Welton
I notice you tagged this article for speedy deletion as an A7. I've not decided to take any action, but I think the speedy is unjustified. Since the article states that Welton plays for Gateshead Thunder, that seems to be a claim to notability. He would pass WP:ATHLETE since that is a fully professional team. The article might well be kept at AfD, though it would get flak for the absence of sources. We can all see that currently it is a poor article. If you still think it should be deleted, it would be better to tag it for WP:BLPPROD. In that case it might be deleted after 10 days for the technicality of being a BLP with no sources. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving Wikipedia, so I won't be taking any further action on it. Thanks,  <font face="Mistral">GregJackP   Boomer!  06:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SOONER!
Just saw what your link was to talk to you... so I thought I'd say SOONER! Anyways, as an FYI, I moved the article to User:Milowent /Donald G. Martin‎. It would not be appropriate to leave a developing BLP in the user space for a retired user. Anyways, hope you return some day... good luck.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to CSD it (U-whatever the code is) - trying to tidy up a couple of things on my way out.  <font face="Mistral">GregJackP   Boomer!  17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ICWA
Retirement is dumb. Take a five minute break if you need time away and distance from the abuse of power and inherent lack of fairness of process -- then hang around and stick it to The Man.

Don't forget we still have to get ICWA to FA status.