User talk:JzG/Archive 57

Global Centurion
I am attempting to re-make a page for the USA NGO Global Centurion that you had deleted for copyright infringement, and it said i should contact you as the deleting admin in my attempt to rebuild it. --SekaiCenturion (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And your username and lack of any other contributions fairly screams WP:COI so if you do it will almost certainly be nuked again under WP:CSD. I recommend you go to WP:AFC and request the article through that mechanism, remembering to note your involvement with the subject and list the reliable independent sources that back your proposed article.  First, though, you will need to go to WP:RENAME and request a change of username to one that is in accordance with our WP:USERNAME policy. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was a conflict of interest from square one, but you have to do what your internship boss tells you. Thank you. SekaiCenturion (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting point I'd not previously considered. Quite often we get people challenging spam blacklisting and the like on the basis that "an intern did it"; your comment raises the question of whether this is done deliberately to maintain plausible deniability. Anyway, if your boss kicks up a stink tell him to email me, guy at chapmancentral dot co dot uk, and I'll explain it direct. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A. James Rudin
Hi Guy, I have made a comment in response to your post at WP:AN. Regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gorman Bechard
Good Day Mr. JzG: Can you please attend to the deletion of author Gorman Bechard's page? He had previously been accredited "notability" status so I am confused by the sudden deletion of his page. My additional comments have been put on his talk page. Additionally, I believe my name is showing up as his. I am an intern working out of the same location as Mr. Bechard and monitoring his content, which at times, has been tampered with. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Anna laffey (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see any evidence of his being "accredited" as notable, in fact I do not know of a process by which we could do such a thing. The article lacked necessary elements such as reliable independent sources. I am in email correspondence now. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, are you the only person allowed to make this decision? Other admins have already helped established notablity and cleaned up the article before this current deletion. Thank you for your time.Anna laffey (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they had. But I have corresponded with him again today. Please be patient, I think we will arrive at a suitable resolution in time without needing to resort to autobiography and conflict of interest, which can blow up in your face. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your time. Anna laffey (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm trying to get this fixed the straight up and down way so there is no suggestion of impropriety. I have seen that go rather badly wrong, and that is *extremely* hard to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I am the other administrator to whom Anna laffey refers. I had declined an A7 deletion request on the article and done a little bit categorization on the article. Anna, what I did is not the same thing as establishing notability. (I came here after replying to a query from Anna laffey on my talkpage regarding this article.) Lady  of  Shalott  04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that solves that little mystery. I did notice your name in the edit history but as you say it was cleanup and wikifying so I didn't think that was what Anna meant. Never mind, I have told Mr. Bechard how to go through an arm's-length process to protect his reputation. I hope he will do that. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Admins. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Actually, it was not Ms. Shallot that I was referring to. There was a previous admin that said "it appeared notability had been established" but that "further sourcing was needed" on the article. That is what we attempted to do which somehow resulted in the page being deleted. I was not trying to suggest that Ms. Shallot had done that nor that we had gone through any process other than that described above. Wiki has a great many rules that as a novice I tried to follow. Unfortunately in this case that doesn't seem to have worked to my (nor Mr. Bechard's) advantage. Again, I appreciate your time.Anna laffey (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. No binding decisions covers this anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry Mr. JzG, that this doesn't matter. I have stated my case to the best of my ability. It is not my desire to convince you, nor anyone else, of Mr. Bechard's "notability" status as it is a purely subjective matter. His body of work continues to speak for itself. I contacted Ms. Shallot as she was the admin that rescued it from deletion and made it a very clean concise page that adequately covered any concerns Mr. Bechard had in regards to content. It is unfortunate that when one writes to an admin for assistance that the result is the page being deleted which is exactly what happened in this case. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree at this point. Have a good day.Anna laffey (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem, just a common misunderstanding on your part. Don't read too much into it. My concern is that if we have an article it should not have the potential to damage the subject's reputation, as autobiographies unquestionably do. I've corresponded with him about how to fix this, he seemed to me to understand the issue. The solution is an arms-length approach that removes any hint of impropriety. I think that this is now clearly understood, there is no real profit in arguing about it any longer as we seem to be at cross-purposes most of the time. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how quickly "misunderstandings" develop when people who come to Wikipedia to promote something or someone discover that they won't be permitted to do so! Neither Ms Laffey nor Mr. Bechard should be allowed within a bargepole's length of any article related to Mr. Bechard. Stay tuned for the socking! -- Rrburke (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rrburke- I did not come here "to promote something or someone". I merely added (or tried to) add third party souce material as requested on Mr. Bechard's article after stumbling upon them via a Google search. I then followed the guidelines to the best of my abilities. I also corrected erroneous content on the page which was incorrect. I never added opinion, advertising, nor resume material and all content was verifiable through simple searches. I asked for assistance via the admins when I noticed his page was tagged for deletion. That the page was ultimately deleted (after being cleaned up nicely by another admin which confused me) is unfortunate but it is what it is. And I understand the "rules" even though I do not completely understand the philosophy behind them. Mr. JzG responded to Mr. Bechard via email which helped to explain a lot of the "misunderstandings" you reference and his email was much appreciated. I'm not sure where your condescending remarks are coming from but I hope I made your Wikipedia day. Kind Regards Anna laffey (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I say, I believe Mr. Bechard is comfortable with what needs done, so there's no need to worry further at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, there has been further discussion of GB at User_talk:Anna_laffey. Trafford09 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For your amusement
This is what I get for neutral editing. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/exposed-attorney-who-worked-on-mccain.html THF (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Everest (mathematical competition)
I don't think Everest (mathematical competition) is a candidate for speedy deletion, so I restored it. I've started a discussion of this deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart fomr having no claim of notability and no sources, that is. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being among the foremost competitions in the country where it takes place could be considered a claim of notability. Lack of sources is a reason to add sources or ask others to add them; it's not grounds for speedy deletion of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsourced assertions are just that, IMO: assertions with no weight. Still, I don't care that much. Unsourced articles are just Wrong, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting from "A7": "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

You appear not to be paying attention to what you're writing about. You asserted that this article was recreated after deletion by the same account that created it in the first place. That is false. I undeleted it. A newbie created it. You don't seem to have commented on the talk page of the person who created the article at the time of the speedy deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You both are correct, as I have noted on the AFD. It was created Nov 28 by the new account, and deleted as a speedy by Guy.  It was recreated on Dec 2 by the same account, speedied by Guy, and then restored by you. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Things They Carried
Responded to your comment on Talk:The Things They Carried. Sorry, I'm a bit lazy and really didn't feel like retyping my response here. And since you hadn't responded yet, I felt the need to inform you. W M  2  00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

S pump...
The story is pretty well cited and I have had quite a good look at the issues, I don't any cut and dried clarity and will investigate all alterations as usual..

If there is anything specific, please make it clear here. thanks. 00:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) " has been used for over a year by an individual apparently located within the Council of Europe offices, to attack and disparage the subject." - I don't know where you got this from, I have removed all such content.. ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see your issue? Have you had a real good look at it? The content was pretty good, there is talk page issues open, you seem to be escalating without need. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Seda_Pumpyanskaya - do you see anything clearly and obviously disparaging to a living person? Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had a real good look at the talk page. I saw people reverting improved accuracy in favour of improved formatting. On a biography. That has been used as a vehicle for attack for much of its life. That is... not good. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And you actually reverted again? Even though you knew that there was an OTRS volunteer working on it and that the subject has made complaints? I have to say that is grossly irresponsible. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been OTRS messages b4, none of which has been from the subject, the content was as I could see was pretty much sourced without anything disparaging, there has been vandalism from Brussels b4 imo in a negative attempt to get the article deleted. There in no clarification that the desired rewrite is any more accurate than the long term version, there is as you see no exact claims as to what is correct or not. Are you telling me that the living suspect has been verified and complained about some specific content in the article? If so please tell me what content she complained about, previously it has never been any complaint from the subject at all. I have watched and seen this for a fair while, there have been vandal attacks on the content from Brussels, and claims of this and that, nothing actual specific. I saw it all as negative vandalism imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - You can see that the AFD closed as no consensus in May http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seda_Pumpyanskaya was started by an email from Europe - brussels, not the subject just someone saying that they thought the article had ... become the field of a never-ending battle of edits and reverts. We would appreciate it if you could delete the entire article from Wikipedia, since it contains inaccurate information about the person and has no genuine informational value to the Wikipedia community... and .. "the tone of the article is not neutral as the Wikipedia rules impose for biographies, but gratulatory. The article might also not comply with the notability guidelines for biographies."

Adj. 1. gratulatory - expressive of sympathetic pleasure or joy on account of someone's success or good fortune; "a congratulatory telegram"; "the usual congratulatory crowd was conspicuously absent"; "a gratulatory address"

That was the last OTRS message not from the subject but from the Brussels address. IMO - that is from someone who thought the content was the opposite of demeaning and disparaging. Someone that wrote to OTRS saying to please delete the article because Sada is not notable and the article is too nice about her - That was six months ago in the last otrs message, when the article content was pretty much exactly the same content that was in it when you came to it yesterday. Clearly there has been some infighting at the council of europe and all I did was keep the content as clean and well cited as I could, I asked for specific details of any issues on the talkpage and non were presented, they still haven't. Perhaps there were small issues, nothing for you to demean my good faith contributions to the article as you have done, and nothing you could point to as disparaging either. If specific issues had been presented on the talkpage I would have investigated and actioned them, but nothing was presented, just Jonny's rewrite is more accurate. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that there are sockpuppets in play here, and at least one of them has masqueraded as the subject's former manager in order to skew the content towards a more negative slant. And one of those used the same language on Wikipedia. That does not change the fact that you reverted an edit stated on the talk page to be fixing factual inaccuracies, in the name of good formatting. That is an incredibly bad call. I can't believe you really meant that. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't just revert it because it was badly formatted, I looked at it and looked at the cites and considered the previous sock issues and the previous possible negative OTRS claims and asked for more details and none were presented. Discussion and the actual issues are what I wanted to see, not vague this is more accurate claims. I was there for discussion and there to help and specifics were not offered to me when I asked what they actually were. I would have formatted all the citations for them if what the actual issues were had been presented to me. Yes, there were sock puppets and imo there is still some involved contributors. You could have also talked to me in a less aggressive manner and a more explanatory way, I am experienced and intelligent enough for you to speak to and get a considered response. I can still see issues with the content you have added, her self published lidinkin page and a couple of strange looking downloads, but you added it so you must have had a good look at it. I am just a neutral in the middle trying to do my best for the article. I didn't just want to be a pawn and allow one side or the other to either write their own article or to delete it completely. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the reason you gave for reversion. But you know that goes both ways: you didn't speak to me before reverting me. I don't think I have much of a history of capricious reverts on WP:BLPs. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave a simple answer not an in depth one and requested discussion and explanation and offered assistance on the talkpage. Yes, I should really have left your edit and discussed with you then but I replaced it because I felt quite strongly that there was no reason to rewrite the article without discussion, which is what you did. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point quite badly, but I am not looking to pick a fight. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pamelia Kurstin
This PROD of yours from last month has now been contested. Courcelles 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KNR
Thanks for your note. I've prodded the article. Hopefully that'll resolve the issue,.  Will Beback   talk    10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guy – in light of this diff, conveying "hired gun" status in creating and updating the page, does WP:OWN and WP:COI call for the original author (or any other "agents" of her or the subject) not being allowed to remove the PROD tag (or otherwise be blocked from edits)? Just curious. (List of Socks available upon request.) &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's evil here, but XfD is warranted if PROD challenged. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted
I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my   Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom    . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! Another outing for File:Axegrind.jpg Guy (Help!) 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a great picture, plus I always appreciate when a colloquial quip can be expressed solely through imagery. Now I’m waiting for you to capture a crumbling cookie, basket full of eggs, blood in water, and an apple resting beside a tree ;o)  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

School of Oriental and African studies
Hello JzG,

Regarding removal of some content from the article School of Oriental and African studies, I wanted some clarifications. About the content you removed, don't you think that they didn't deserve to be removed at one shot? Or is there some particular way articles relating to colleges and schools are written? I edit some Indian colleges/schools related articles myself, so I will be thankful for any input. Thank you! MikeLynch (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was builked out with lengthy laundry lists of people. For the high level article, that is not a good idea. The key individuals are discussed in the prose and we have a category we can link to for the fuller lists. I think this should apply to most places where there are more than a handful of potential candidates. For example, the article on my old school should probably only list Stephen Hawking, Tim Rice and Pope Adrian IV. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so is it recommended that there be no generic information as such, but only specific info? Also, is there a need for the departments of the school/college to be listed? And lastly, I have mainly edited the articles RVCE, PESIT and BMSCE. If you can make the time, I would be grateful if you could give some suggestions on improving these articles. Thank you! MikeLynch (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would recommend that generic information such as "SOAS has a Students Union" ans "SOAS students live in halls or rented accommodation" is not included. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Response:En-Wikileaks
Can you please edit the OTRS response, changing the 1st paragraph to "The Wikimedia Foundation runs Wikipedia and other projects listed at . The Wikimedia Foundation does not run Wikileaks." and combining the first two paragraphs into one? The reason is that there is actually a slight connection: Wikipedia/WMF --> Jimmy --> Wikia --> Wikileaks domains.

Maybe also replace that huge blog URL with something less likely to break in some email accounts, like preview dot tinyurl dot com slash 33odwgg

I can't edit the response page because of IP problems. Ta. -- Jeandré, 2010-12-11t08:34z


 * Any idea why Wikia have those domains? As I understand it they have the .com domain but not the main .org domain, is that right? Guy (Help!) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTLEAKS and Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-06/WikiLeaks. -- Jeandré, 2010-12-11t13:02z
 * Ah, I was pretty sure it would be something like that. Thanks. The response is updated, by the way, and I have just added a link to NOTLEAKS as it's a nice description of the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response:En-Wikileaks done. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles listed at AFD
Do you know whether multiple reliable independent sources exist that document this subject in depth? Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um. I'd have hoped so, but a quick Google only finds trivia. It's unfortunate that the article is clearly the work of the company itself. I will have a look in some print sources, the CTC probably covered them in Cycle at some point. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could probably use the help of a handy little tool &#x21d7; then. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but the searches often don't distinguish between cyclescheme and cycle scheme, plus most of the news stories are press releases. I am pretty sure there was an actual article in Cycle but I need to find out when. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha
Banned users don't usually get "courtesy deletions" particularly since it helps to cover their tracks and carry on with their activities (since there's no link between talk page/an/i discussion of the old malcolm acount and the "courtesy rename" which itself seemed rather outrageeous.) A short discussion of this from a few days ago is also at my talk page .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is superbly confusing. It's under discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that user talk page should not have been deleted, both on the merits (in view of the RFC about this issue) and also as a matter of procedure (because there is no speedy deletion criterium that covers this deletion). I appreciate the arguments raised on ANI about possible lawsuits, but as I commented there I believe that any deletions required to avoid lawsuits should be taken by Foundation staff, not us. Could you please restore the page and, if you think it should be deleted, submit it to MfD? Thanks,  Sandstein   20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see now that it was not you who deleted the user talk page, but Jpgordon. I'll ask him.  Sandstein   21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

carrots vs sticks
I love cruft and I know that others...ummm...don't. Nevertheless I am very interested in improving 'core' material. Hence I am pondering somecarrots rather than sticks...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

continuing discussion from a discouraged contributor
Hey Guy, I wanted to continue our discussion. coyote (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you'd like to give me an example of something that was reverted, I can try to help you understand why. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cycles
I thought that I'd point you in the direction of two "super" AFD discussions that you might enjoy. One is even related to cycles. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you help Burpelson AFB out with the books? Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps War College
Hello, my name is Jill Clay. I created the Marine Corps War College page and you've deleted it three times. I saw that the Marine Corps University (MCU) had it's own page so I was trying to be innovative and create a page for the Marine Corps War College (which is a part of MCU). I've chopped down the page to make it factual and non-biased and you still deleted it. Other people edited my page and you still deleted it. What do I need to do to keep this page up? JillClay (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillClay (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We strongly discourage people form editing articles where they have a close connection with the subject, see WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have given the information to a third party who is completely unattached to the University and they posted the page the second time and you still deleted it. I am trying to post factual information on the Marine Corps War College by using credible references. What do I have to do to keep this page from being deleted? As I previously stated, MCU has a wikipedia page and I'm trying to create one for MCWAR as well. I don't have the time to become an active user on wikipedia, nor do I wish to. I'm simply trying to add a college to the online encyclopedia. JillClay (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillClay (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what tends to happen when people are spoonfed text that has been originally written for promotional purposes. I suggest you go to WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force and find someone completely uninvolved but with an interest in that topic area who is interested in creating a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Many people have looked at the content of the page and wikipedia guidelines and recommended revisions accordingly. What specifically on the page was not neutral? JillClay (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillClay (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think if you read this blog post you will see where I am coming from. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to create the page again and I have asked another user for his help from the website you recommended. If you read the page you will find factual, unbiased, neutral information. Please don't delete it. Since you're so active on wiki, maybe you can help make the page better. JillClay (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Give the other user the material and let them write it. You cannot possibly know what is neutral when you are writing about something with which you have a close personal connection. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your note on Looper's talk page, and since he's not very active, thought I would weigh in. I'm not sure what you have for references aside from what is on your talk page (I'm guessing this is some kind of draft), but it seems really thin, and as it stands, we would want more third-party sources before creating a standalone article. However, I think you have enough to make a subsection on the Marine Corps University page, since it is a subordinate entity of that command anyway. If you can find more references, I would be happy to help you write it up. I haven't seen the deleted article, but I don't think that COI is going to be a big issue, and one I am certainly able to keep in mind.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Es leuchten die Sterne
Good catch. Whoever began this one definitely got off on the wrong foot. At the AFD I opined a delete, as the current version is heartily incorrect. BUT I got to thinking... and then began writing a proper version of the article in a workspace. Take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Stars Shine (film). If you agree it is looking to pass muster, I could move it over the bad version, and then request you might a withdrawal based upon the replacement. Seem reasonable?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I'm thinking... as my article is quite different from the one you nominated, perhaps I should simply create it as a new article and suggest a redirect from old to new title. At least this way I can reward my work with a DYK. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can do that, or simply close the AfD as "article rewritten" and redirect as appropriate - I am happy for you to do that. Whatever you like, really, as long as the inaccuracy is gone. I'm a heartless deletionist so you don't want me looking at anything :o) but seriously the problem is that the article seems to be twaddle, and as long as you've sorted that out then it's all good, Wikipedia wins. And well done for that, incidentally. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just amazed that as twaddle it sat unsourcable for 4 years. Happy Holidays.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Far from the only one. We've had deliberate hoaxes last years in the past. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's live: The Stars Shine (film).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Amen ...
... to that closure of a pointless thread at WP:AN.

And happy solstice! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * we should hand out punishments of fixing x unreferenced BLPs to all miscreants and fools on AN and ANI. The problem would be solved in no time :-) Guy (Help!) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice about discussion on AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Joe Sioufi.Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have chosen to make a fool of yourself. I have no idea why, but I guess that's your call. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Elena Pinchuk
Hi, for your consideration. I've added an OTRS ticket to the talkpage of Elena Pinchuk. -- Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I already told them that G12 was only one of three possible CSD rationales for that article, as you'd expect given its origin. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- Taketa (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ella Washington
Please check before you use edit summaries like WP:REFSPAM. Both those sources were (wrongly, you would say) included in my original version of the article - they are not links I have added to any other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence intended, what was clear was that many links were added by a couple of IPs that trace to the site, I was just cleaning up following a complaint about the abuse. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Aphorism
Please, do not make wholesale deletions without prior discussion.--Galassi (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOLD, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and so on. It is never a problem to remove unsourced personal opinions from articles. Ever. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the data in the aticle is controversial in any way.--Galassi (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You say. However, I consider it controversial because it is unsourced and because no source is provided for these examples being singled out as especially significant. In other words, it's original research, and that's as controversial as it gets on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)