User talk:JzG/Archive 56

Mark Clifford
Hi, I just saw your edit at Mark Clifford. I'm not quite sure what you mean... I don't see any conflict of interest with the source cited. What am I missing? Could you please elaborate? Thanks -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin Mitchell has an agenda against Mark Clifford so is not a neutral commentator. I have asked Mr. Clifford to provide more sources as the article as-was was dominated by Mitchell's material. The sacking story, for example, involved the kind of "vulgar joke" which is common enough in the more unreconstructed corners of journalism but would get you fired in a heartbeat from most corporations with any kind of discrimination policy. I guess anyone who reads Private Eye will know what this kind of thing means - "must be a lesbian, can't take a joke" kind of retaliation is not uncommon when women complain of harassment in Fleet Street even now. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The world of journalism in any town is small. How's an ordinary editor meant to know of that relationship? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You couldn't be expected to know, there's no hint of criticism of you at all. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and reassurance. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I suggested to Mr. Clifford that he contact you at your talk page, as the most active trustworthy editor of that page. I hope that's OK. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The history of Hanwell and an elephant in the room
Since this has been re-listed twice, I thought it time to comment again. I noted the redlinked elephant in the room, elsewhere, last month. &#9786; One of the questions that people haven't asked is "Who is Sir Montagu Sharpe?". Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with Donald Arthur article?
Hi Guy. It's been a while since I've written anything here--years in fact. I edit pretty lightly nowadays, but one article I have become involved with is Donald Arthur, which is mainly the work of one person (User: PariahCarry). He has put in a vast amount of, to my mind, irrelevant material, and dozens of spuriously italicized phrases. I did a lot of cutting and cleanup, but he seems to want it all in there, and I don't really have the heart for a big dispute or revert war. Do you think I could get you to take a look at it? See my last edit and the previous 60K version in the history.

Many thanks if you have the time. Hope you're well,  &middot; rodii &middot;  21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and see his contribs for an indication what's going on here.  &middot; rodii &middot;  21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PRODded article now at AfD
Hi JzG, you may wish to comment at Articles_for_deletion/Ebru_TV. SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson
Could you please RevisionDelete this? Thanks,  Goodvac   ( talk ) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. I also blocked the IP. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith Law (singer and songwriter), Velvett Fogg.
Guy, Regarding your message, I must say I am disappointed that two Wikipedia entries referring to me and my band have been deleted.

Firstly the entry on Keith Law, I believe was entered by someone else, and not an auto-biography by me. When I noticed it, it was in need of editing. This is what I did.

Secondly Velvett Fogg, was already a 'stub' entry on Wikipedia, and once again all I did, was, to edit it. Indeed I believe initially the stub was expanded by one of your own admin team.

I have all my web-sites with great links back to Wikipedia, as I was proud of being included, by whoever! I am also an administrator on an American forum with our own Wikipedia.

It is a great disappointment therefore, that what seem to be two well presented and factual entries, should be deleted.

Regards,

Velvettfogg (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:AUTO and WP:COI. There is no doubt that the major editor of these articles is you. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Terry Farrell (architect)
Hello. Can you please help me understand why this article was deleted so suddenly? I understand from the deletion log description the grounds under which you deleted it but I have never seen an established, well illustrated article disappear like that, with no debate. Is there any way you could restore the article and allow editors to work on it in order to respond to your objections? I agree that there were sections that appeared promotional but I still felt it had merit and could certainly have been improved. I guess what I am also asking for is confirmation that it is possible for established articles simply to disappear so quickly, with only one person reviewing them? I have never seen it happen before, except to entirely new content. It seems harsh that whoever now wishes to start a new Terry Farrell article has to begin afresh when the version you've deleted contained a lot of useful content. I've no connection with the subject of the article or special interest in his work. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was heavily promotional in tone (basically it read as an advertisement) and largely the work of employees of the company, who were complaining every time it was improved. You can have the content for rework into something policy-compliant if you like. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the way to treat an article, losing all its history. Please restore it, tagging the bits you don't like. I quite agree that the list of projects is excessive - those which have WP articles should have WP links, there's no need for umpteen links to his own website. (I came across the article while stub-sorting and was puzzled by its history - especially as the stub remaining was so poorly formatted etc). PamD (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it that you didn't read the talk page or you didn't understand it? Guy (Help!) 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read the question I asked you, or don't you undertand it? I was asking if it is "policy-compliant" for an admin to delete an established article, contributed to by many editors, without notice or debate?Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The article was a blatant advertisement. You do not appear to have commented on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now commented at the talk page. PamD (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Awareness Center
Please remain involved in the BLP discussion about this. If none of the three sources are reliable, the material should be edited out. But I believe they are reliable. I hope you feel you can opine on the three sources without divulging anything you shouldn't from OTRS complaints. I think you can. Thanks for considering it, regardless of what you decide. 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)David in DC (talk)

Talkback: SpikeToronto
—  Spike Toronto  18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Apollo 18 (film)
The "objectively provable significance" is in its coverage. I am of the opinion that the project is nicely served by incubating this one for a few weeks... as it is getting coverage.. Its simply a little bit too soon, and incubation serves the project by allowing editors to expand and source the article as it awaits its return.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So incubate it, but none of the coverage was linked as sources. WP:V, WP:RS ,you know the drill. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sardinia
Are you from Sardinia?  Giacomo  23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even like sardines! No, I am from the BRITONS' Britain. I went to the 14th oldest school in the world. Why? Do I look Sardinian? Better than Corsican I guess! Guy (Help!) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On a par with.  Giacomo   23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Kaufmann
Hello, There has been significant improvement of the article today, though much remains to be done. What do you think of it now? Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Layla Jade
I see you have deleted the article due to an OTRS ticket. The article did meet the standards of WP:PORNBIO, and WP:ANYBIO too for that matter... Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are guidelines that indicate the kind of person for whom reliable sources may exist. In this case the article had only unreliable sources. Feel free to suggest some reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jensen Ackles
Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie ackles is probably relevant. January  (talk)  16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, thank you very much for that. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Meagan McKinney
Hello JzG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Meagan McKinney, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 20 books published in my view makes this more than an A7 candidate. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not books, they are romance novels. Barbara Cartland wrote them at the rate of one a month, if I recall correctly. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carol M. Swain


A tag has been placed on Carol M. Swain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of New Hollow (Band)
I think the Speedy Deletion of this article was premature, as there was evidence that the band does have a single on the Billboard charts. If I read correctly this meets the requirement of WP:BAND requirement #2 ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."). Unfortunately the Billboard link is dynamic, so as is it doesn't work for a reference link, but there should be something else out there. I know the article still needed work, but the subject does meet the notability requirements in my opinion. No, I'm not the creator of the article, just a concerned editor. Thanks for your time. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's needed is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources which is primarily about the band. WP:BAND is merely an indication of the kind of band that might get this attention. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, ok. Well, would you mind userfying for me so I can work on it? Thanks. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don Herbert
It was a pretty big news article back when it happened, but he's not been notable since. I'll let it go to the vote and see what happens. Thanks for letting me know. --Zerbey (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna Nicholas
What exactly happened here? The actress was miffed because the article about her was deleted for lack of notability, so we create a disam page mentioning her but not linking to an article? If she's not notable, she is not notable, end of story, and doesn't even deserve a mention on a disam page. This is nonsense, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The name is not uncommon and it's an easy and cheap way of closing off a complaint. We even have a homonym confusion boilerplate on OTRS:
 * Due to the way Wikipedia's editing system works, it is very easy for users to inadvertently add a link to a person or object bearing the same name to the one they wish to link to. This may happen, for instance, if they create a link to an article that does not exist yet, and then later someone adds an article with that exact title about something else.
 * When such problems are found, users create disambiguation links or pages. Titles of articles about identically named subjects are then made different by using some kind of qualifiers between parentheses. For instance, since there are at least three notable individuals called Jack Lang, we differentiate them by their profession and citizenship: .
 * I have changed the link.

See the last bit? Dabs are cheap and since the existing article is an autobiography I'd say notability was equally questionable in both cases! Guy (Help!) 11:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know perfectly well how and why we disambiguate. My question in this case was why create the disambiguation page in the first place when the only other entry apart from the existing article was a non-existent and never likely to exist article? In any event it has all been cleaned up and Anna Nicholas is now, correctly, the existing article as it was before. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Suzy Kassem
The problem is that as currently constituted, it shows up on the daily list of untagged uncategorized articles, which has to be cleared right to zero each and every day. Every single page that shows up on that list has to be dealt with, whether it's by categorizing, tagging or deleting, and there cannot be any "skip this one and let it sit here permanently" exceptions for any reason whatsoever. So if you really need the placeholder page to stay in place, then you need to find a way to ensure that it doesn't get counted as an untagged uncategorized article — because if it shows up on that list, whoever's tagging on any given day has an absolute obligation to do whatever is necessary to get it off the list immediately. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, please point me to the cat and I will kludge the thing so it doesn't appear there. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually an offsite toolserver list rather than a category, as such ( only comes into play after the tag has been applied). But I see that you already found a solution, so thanks :-) Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the re-creation, re-deletion and re-re-creation of this over the last day or two. Is the displaying of deletion logs now considered an "offence" (as the category descriptions puts it) for all BLPs, or was there some complaint made regarding this article in particular? I don't recall seeing a discussion about this, but maybe I missed it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I am handling a number of complaints from people whoa re upset about it. See WP:VPT. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better understanding of what the problem is now (your original link on my talk page didn't really help me find that discussion.) Wow, people will complain about anything now... Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable complaint. Often they did not want the article, did not want the debate and certainly do not want the deletion logs. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)