User talk:JzG/Archive 63

Façonnable
I consider your deletion of Façonnable to be inappropriate application of WP:CSD. The page has existed since July 2006, was created by user well versed in policy, been edited by many well rounded users since then, and was receiving 2000+ pageviews per month before the recent situation. Obviously there are many people who do not believe it is a page which should be deleted, so you should have discussed it on the talk, talked with the creator, or raised an AFD. Please restore it. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Old spam is still spam, and I don't know what "incident" (I can't remember what drew me to it either, probably an OTRS ticket). The "user well versed in policy" (who had under 250 edits all of which I've checked were flattering to their subjects) wrote:
 * Façonnable is a high-end retailer specializing in taylored men's and women's clothing. The company started humbly as a small custom taylor shop that Jean Goldberg opened in 1950 on Rue Paradis in Nice, France.  By 1958 the small taylor shop was making custom tuxedos for Hollywood stars that were in the Cote d'Azur for the annual Cannes Film Festival.  In 1961 Jean Goldberg's son, Albert, took over the shop and renamed it Façonnable, a variation of the word "Façonner," which means "to create."  Under his watch the company expands and in 1973 opens its first boutiques in Monte Carlo, Cannes, Saint-Tropez and Marseilles, however it was not until 1984 that Façonnable opened an outlet in Paris.


 * By 1988 Façonnable comes to the United States through an exclusive agreemment with Nordstrom and in 1993 it opens its first US boutique on New York City's Fifth Avenue. The success of the line in the US leads the company to expand its product US line to include clothing and accessories for women in 1995.  By 1997 the company expands its US presence by opening two new boutiques on the West Coast.


 * In 2000, Albert Goldberg sold the company to Nordstrom, Inc., however design and product creation operations remain in Nice, France.
 * I say wrote, perhaps "copied from a press release" would be more accurate. I'm happy to facilitate rewrite to a form that is not a blatant advertisement, if anyone's interested. Guy (Help!) 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. There's plenty more of that sort of stuff around. Unfortunately, page views are not a measure of quality. However, as a prestigious brand, it's clear that there is a demand for such a page, so perhaps we can stub it down into something neutrally useful. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this, there was previously some potentially libellous material in an earlier version of the deleted article. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask if you would write a new version, nor tell me what the current version looked like. I asked you to justify your decision to call it spam or reverse your action. It was created in 2006, and was well within policy. Sure it needs to be improved, but you are abusing your tools to delete articles on a whim based on the current text of an article. I have restored the history, which includes many good faith edits. I'll now quickly recheck the revdel work. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) So what's your view on writing about this story? Obviously sensitive because it's been the subject of an OTRS ticket. On the other hand, one could justify inclusion because Wikipedia is not censored, now that it's becoming quite public... -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have oversighted the potentially libellous material. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder did that before JzG deleted it. I'm rechecking it now, to be sure. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say I don't entirely agree with you. The first version was spam, and the last one was too. There was no 'unspammed' version to revert it to, so I believe the deletion complied with G11 . -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please subscribe me to your spam?  I'd happily read books full of articles like the original version of this article rather than wikilaywering over definitions of G11. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thou dost complain too much! ;-) I don't do spam, and I think you missed the point. Just because a company is notable does not justify the sort of spam that was there for 4+ years. Yes, unfortunately unencyclopaedic content often escapes deletion for one reason or another; nobody chose to do anything about it until its deletion. I myself may well not have put it up for speedy, choosing instead to rework it completely – as I have just done – but I do not impugn JzG for speeding it. I just hope you like the present version. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think calling it spam, and treating it as such, is a grave injustice to the people in our community who laboured for Wikipedia five years ago to write that article, which has been informative to tens of thousands of readers in that time. You will find shitter and spammier articles written by me, viewed only by 10 people a month, but I can show you that those same shitty articles have been appreciated by people in niche domains, have brought in contributions from experts and some turned into regular contributors.  The current version is dandy, and I appreciate that you invested the time at short notice to fill the gap. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I won't say I have never written a spammy article in my earlier years with this project, so I take your point. but some spam is deliberate. In any event, I've learned a lot over the years, and what once would have passed muster no longer does. Maybe I've also grown cynical. I'm glad that the article was flagged, or else it would have vegetated for another 4+ years. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that it was notable back in the 1990s, so we should always have had an article about it.
 * My view is that we suppress any problematic edits, or the whole article if the original edit contained the problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you may have missed the point of my question: I was asking, bearing in mind the court case is now in the open, whether you think it acceptable to incorporate into the WP article details of the court case to trace the identities of the IP editors, based on the report here? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely missed your point here. Sorry.  My view is that it isn't worth mentioning at present, and is unlikely to be more than a footnote.  I'd only include it if becomes a landmark case, or it has a major reported effect on the company.  It is interesting that the details in the original version of the article are encyclopedic to me (albeit a bit flowery), but this recent news is what some people will consider to be vital encyclopedic information that must be included. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're on the same wavelength on this. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

German sense of humor
I have a reliable source for Germany being the least funny country on the planet! So take that! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolving discussions
Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:FORUMSHOP is closed. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So is the article where the discussion was referred to. Funny that. Cjwilky (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because of constant attempts to insert special pleading, weasel words and cherry-picking. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions on abortion articles...
I saw that you poked your head in at Talk:Abortion and offered to be an uninvolved admin. Well, I've come to report a 1RR violation at Talk:Abortion/FAQ. Cheers. -Andrew c [talk] 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have helped had you left a talk page note reminding him of 1RR restrictions but there has been sufficient discussion that IMO an explicit warning can be foregone this time, so I have given you all a day off from this particular individual. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy.
 * Would this  be a bending or breaking of the 1RR restrictions? Donkeyshins. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Has a warning and link to the restriction been posted to the user? Please link if so. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unknown (I'll check that first next time). The user "forgets" to log in most of the time so I'm looking through the typical IPs. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke. Let me know the results. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could not find a specific warning. The user is not new to the abortion article and now we have this :( Advice? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Warn of the sanctions, remind them not to be disruptive, do it politely, come back (or WP:ANI) if they continue. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

M1 Group
I see you also deleted M1 Group using similar logic as you did for Façonnable, discussed above. Again it appears to be an article created in good faith contributions by another user, conforming to policies at the time and being gradually improved over time. Also, you cite a deletion rationale of "Also A7". The article did make credible claims as to why the organisation is important. As a result, it does not appear to me that either of those speedy criteria apply. Please review and consider restoring. Should you restore it, I'll be glad to sprinkle it with references and trim the excessive detail about what was Investcom. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "good faith" could use some work. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to DRV. Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_28. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hey Guy. Is there any way to do a pre-SPI checkuser? I can provide plenty of diffs if you want to look at the case more closely but I believe I'm being hounded by a sockpuppet whose owner didn't get their way at another article that I'm involved with. I let it go before because I thought letting them simmer down might help more than poking them with a stick. I suspect that is a sock of. Thanks for your time. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could ask on the admin irc channel. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All taken care of. Was using a sock and had another ready to go.  I had never tried the IRC channel and really liked how quickly it moved.  Thanks for sending me that direction.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Orangemarlin_reported_by_User:67.233.18.28_.28Result:_Reporter_blocked_48h.29
You are invited to join the discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. – Lionel (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )