This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, via OTRS permission was received concerning the content of the article Hotel St. Pierre. I first contacted the moderator who deleted the article, but have had no reply so far. Could you please have a look if this is enough to restore the article or for any other further action? Thank you -- Taketa (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• That was only one of a number of rationales for deletion. The text was also (as you'd expect, originating from the company's website) promotional in tone and lacking references. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to get guidance on the creation of this article? After several revisions, I was told that the permission of the material was the only outstanding reason for rejection. I am happy to make the necessary changes if someone can point them out. Frenchquarterhx (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Frenchquarterhx

Here's the guidance: don't. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is there anyone that would actually be willing to help? I'd like to do this the right way and make a positive contribution to the site. Frenchquarterhx (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Frenchquarterhx

• I don't know anyone who's falling over themselves to help people write about their businesses, but I guess there must be someone somewhere. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ticket:2011010410005751. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, she's unhappy with me because I won't give her what she wants, which is to facilitate her promotion of her client. Obviously one of those people who can't hear the word "no". Happy to leave it to you, though, and thanks for the note. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Will do. I do think there's a salvageable article there and I am probably going to end up undeleting the article with a nice trim and a large dollop of COI warning. Is that OK? Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you like, though I always hate giving spammers what they want. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So I'm new to this. (I'm not sure if i'm even using this talk page right; hope I can write in this space). Anyhow, noticed you deleted the entire section called "Suspicion of Arson" on the biography page of Darrell Issa. I'm new to encyclopedic writing, but i tried to keep it as neutral but informative and detailed as possible, presenting both the investigation and the dissents in the case involving Issa's suspicion of arson.

The incident was ignored in the Wikipedia entry yet there was much coverage of it in both California and Ohio newspapers, as well as the New York Times, I don't see why the entire section was deleted. I was hoping for an administrator to make edits to parts of it in case my words didn't appear neutral enough. I didn't expect the entire thing would be deleted.

Below you responded to another person saying their information was not well sourced. However, my article was very well sourced and based on multi-page articles, not just some news brief or some random blog posts.

Frankly, I thought about keeping it short, but i think that would make it all the more suspicious that Issa was actually guilty of arson. Therefore I included competing accounts from Issa as well as two of his business partners.

Can you tell me what i did wrong? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by District 49 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• You added controversial material about allegations that have never been tested in court to a biography of a living person, and you have zero edits other than adding negative material to that article. We don't need single purpose accounts on controversial biographies. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Why do you think it is an autobio? Do you have any evidence for this assumption? Is it the Bluewombat's edit history? Thanks for your answer. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an account at OTRS. Could you explain the circumstances, please? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The ticket tells us it's an autobiography, his own admission. No big deal, it's a common newbie error so I moved it to his user page for him and left a comment on his talk page. I also emailed him to tell him why, and that having moved it I was able to remove the maintenance tags about which he was complaining. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I regret the prematurely closed AfD, it could be an interesting discussion :) In my opinion, this was a borderline case. Have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are the last person to delete (and probably Salted) Sprint CEO and wireless pioneer Dan Hesse because because of a history of blatant copyright violations. I was going through the Sprint CEO's because of a significant development in one of them. I have an article on him in my sandbox. Before I even started there are numerous backlinks to him. Could you please unsalt the article so I can create it? Thanks.15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Google is suggesting to me that you have a connection with Sprint, is that the case? Guy (Help!) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never heard that google could do that. I ran various combinations with my real name, email and user name and couldn't find what you are suggesting. I do not work for Sprint. I have no connection with Sprint whatsoever other than having a Virgin Mobile phone that runs on their network. I only did the article because his predecessor stepped down from the University of Missouri and I wanted to make sure there was succession box. Since I write a lot of local history articles about the Kansas City area, I have probably at various times mentioned Sprint (and my photo of the headquarters is on the article - which I took a visit back to my hometown). I was not involved at any time in any of the previous articles on Hesse and only discovered there had been past history when I hit the red link. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, then. It was User:Orangemike who salted it, but your userpsace draft looked OK so I have moved it in. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Americasroof (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again thank you for the move. Would it be possible to remove the edit history? Since it was a move from my generic sandbox there's a lot of totally unrelated stuff in the history. Thanks again.Americasroof (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, why have you deleted my user page? Could you explain a bit. Thanks --8qblog (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In amongst the soapboxing and accusations of bad faith, JzG, there are genuine sources. Did you see that?—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests

What I saw was that Mark Hucko was taking yet another kick at the can, and laying into another editor against whom he bears a grudge. It's odd that something so terribly significant requires the inventor to come along and ask for undeletion. We know that blognik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Hucko, I also have my suspicions about Ekstazo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the last user to recreate the article, Espero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very likely Hucko too. He is most assiduous in his self-promotion.

My primary reason for becoming a registered Wikipedia user was the fact that there are some wikipedia.org users who have chosen to pervert the facts and history and who are misusing wikipedia.org for their own purposes. For example one of those users has made it his life-mission to remove all references to the universal interslavic language Slovio from the English pages of Wikipedia, while trying to promote his plagiarized language, which was created with a few cosmetic changes from Slovio. The facts have to be set straight: Slovio is the first workable inter-slavic language with a complete grammar and sizable vocabulary which has existed in the thousand years since the demise of Old Church Slavonic.

— user:Blognik

See what I mean? A man on a mission, and his mission is not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely see what you mean. Want me to open a fresh DRV to discuss the actual sources, then?—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly what I want is for him to piss off and take his self-promotion and his made-up language with him. I am not big on giving spammers what they want. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully he will, but the German-language sources need taking seriously.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good, I'll take them seriously. In the fullness of time. When someone provably unconnected with the subject suggests a non-promotional redraft. In my view people abusing Wikipedia to further their own interests are evil and I am in no hurry to give Hucko what he wants. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept me as "provably unconnected with the subject", then the non-promotional redraft I suggest is a (somewhat edited) translation of this article on de.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you were not interested until the spammer came along to ask for his self-promotional article back (again). I absolutely hate giving spammers what they want. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he's a spammer doesn't automatically make him wrong...—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RBI. And the revrt includes removing his 100% self-serving DRV request. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's gone, and he isn't going to get his promotional article. The question is, do you have a problem with a non-promotional replacement? If so, I need to open a further DRV, and if not I can just go ahead.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please respond; I'd rather not open a DRV unless it's strictly necessary.—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In the continuing absence of a response, I have opened a DRV here.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind explaining the speedy delete of Wendy Mogel? I can certainly see a delete debate, but it was a pretty robust, legitimate page. Can you restore it or explain why it was removed? Thanks --nep (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G11, article existed only to promote something. It was created and virtually all substantive content written by Ethicsandkids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (susannat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently the subject's daughter, made trivial edits only). In short, it read like a book jacket blurb. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

[1]. Cheers! 86.174.110.24 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Deliberate redlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I had this page on my watchlist from a little while ago. I believe that last time it was posted, it was a copyright violation of a NYT article. It reapeared today and I find it fishy. At best, it's just a copy/paste from Stillman House (Litchfield) and there's nothing wrong with it. Worst case, it's full of copyright violations. Do you see anything wrong with it that might need immediate attention? OlYeller^Talktome 03:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found a mirror website with a copy of the Stillman House (Litchfield) article and a copy of the article in the form of a National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. I'm not sure who the form 'belongs' to so I'm not sure if it's a copyvio. If it belongs to the applicant, I guess it would be considered their work and a copyright violation (I think?) but if it belongs to the US government, it's public domain, correct? At any rate, I'm not copyright attorney so I wanted to see if you had any insight on the matter. OlYeller^Talktome 03:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a copy paste it needs deleting. This is a single-purpose account so they probably either don't understand it or (worse) are a sockpuppet of the previous creator. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, How do I go about reinstating that Fabulous page. I got the photos off band member. All the referencing etc went through stringent checks if you look at page history. Can we work together to edit it?

Thanks, Shirley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsaiman (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• You need reliable independent sources and a draft version that does not read like PR. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a user you recently blocked [2] is back by using a couple IPs. That was his favorite edit: [3]

93.186.31.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): same edit earlier and also [4],[5]

93.186.31.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): same edit earlier and it is now active. Should they be blocked? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

93.186.23.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This is also him, as well as 93.186.23.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.186.31.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Biophys (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I also reported them to WP:AVI. 93.186.31.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently blocked for two weeks, but I think he should be re-blocked indefinitely.Biophys (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, I have semiprotected Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is the problem: they vandalizes many other articles, and this is apparently the same person. But such matters should be probably addressed at SPI?Biophys (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know about all the above. I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian?

Thanks Sinsaiman (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I didn't know about this. he said he had requested a block on the person doing the vandalising.

I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian? Thanks Shirley Sinsaiman (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, have you got some detail about that article? As I could see, the article appeared to be wanted to be kept by someone who appeared to be the likely subject and someone who appeared to be a student wanting to get rid of it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• -The cashe is here - where has the subject stated that it is factually incorrect from beginning to end? Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The person asking for deletion is, as far as I can make out, the subject. We had an OTRS email from someone who is believable as the subject (name plus .edu domain) requesting deletion. I don't need the cached version, I can see the deleted versions. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well imo it was the student that didn't like the subject having an article that sent you the email but I can't see it. I can't see it also because you deleted it but the talkpage discussion was looking clearly reflective of that situation also, the standards for professors notability is set quite low as I remember, and I was thinking he was just about notable and I removed most of the disputable detail from the article and it would have been better imo sending it AFD if you had a unverifiable email, reminds me of the last time I spoke to you - arbitrarily rewriting or deleting articles because you had an weakly claimed unverified email from someone claiming to be the subject.wouldd you please add to the deletion log the OTRS number as you have on previous such deletions after OTRS requests, thanks - If you can't add it, just post it here so I can reference it if needed for future discussions. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What does it mean "stated by the subject to be factually incorrect from beginning to end." in English? Shaska has contacted you and stated that the page is factually incorrect? The guy is quite controversial in Albania and has had issues in every country he has worked. I am not a student, I am a colleague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therepel (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I see you have edited, is there some reason for you not to provide the OTRS number relating to this case as I requested ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. I can't be arsed, and you don't have OTRS access anyway. There's only one ticket under that name, the search feature works just fine. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually in reply to your positions of added responsibility at this wikipedia you have a duty to reply to such good faith queries in regards to your contributions such as we all do, go search for it yourself is not a fair reply to a good faith request, if you can't be arsed to reply in a decent manner you should consider if you should be arsed to edit at all. I dispute your judgment as it is and your comments here do nothing to alleviate my doubts, you appear to consider yourself above answering in a respectful manner, no I don't have OTRS access but I am still a human being worthy of a respectful answer, so, consider your ongoing position as regards future arbitrarily deleting content without clear confirmation of who has sent you the email - as you refuse to discuss and explain there is nothing to discuss with you, but this is the second time this issue has arisen with you and I hope not to come a third. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi JzG,

Sorry to bother you. You might remember our conversation in June, regarding Article references for the Third Report?

The Third Report broke a big story over the summer, which dozens of national media outlets picked up, and credited the Third Report for either the story, the video (the video itself has a hover spot in the center top crediting the Third Report), or both.

Would these credits to the Third Report from national media outlets (the Huffington Post and Politico, to name just two) constitute non-trivial references?

It's okay if they don't. They are about the Third Report's story and video, and not the site itself. It only just now occurred to me that they might of helped, though, and so I thought I would ask.

Just let me know,

Thanks,

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• For me, sources need to be about the subject, not just namechecks, however high profile. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy. I thought so, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I'll keep waiting for someone to take notice.

Tony TonyBorelli (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I didn't know about this. he said he had requested a block on the person doing the vandalising. I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian? Thanks Shirley Sinsaiman (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• How about not doing that? How about giving up your obsession with this profoundly unimportant subject? My tolerance for people with only one interest on Wikipedia is strictly limited. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well well, I see you have forum-shopped your way to getting your spammy article restored. And now I think you are vermin. Please never post here again. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)