Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
New talk section: Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 140: Line 140:


Thank-you :) what a mess! Much better :) [[User:CheckersBoard|CheckersBoard]] ([[User talk:CheckersBoard|talk]]) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you :) what a mess! Much better :) [[User:CheckersBoard|CheckersBoard]] ([[User talk:CheckersBoard|talk]]) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

== Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria ==

Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria

-In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules.
-at best some information from the article can be merged into other related articles with less triviality and make other articles more consisitent.
-article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing. Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry and has been so from the beginning without any substantial change
-topic might be better as a blog elsewhere
-career postings can be listed under the appropriate articles

Essentially overall information presented isn't substantial enough to warrant a single article on this particular. [[User:CheckersBoard|CheckersBoard]] ([[User talk:CheckersBoard|talk]]) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:18, 11 September 2015

WikiProject iconBiography Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconCanada: Ontario / Politics Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Possible contradiction

The article states that Marin has pushed to have his mandate expanded to include the MUSH sector. But in the list of accomplishments, it lists several investigations he's conducted into municipal bodies. Could someone clarify this? It appears he already has at least some investigative power over municipalities (Government by Stealth, e.g.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.135 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of the Ontario Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the MUSH sector, except for complaints about closed municipal meetings. (Please see the Ombudsman Act [1] (s.2.1-2.6) for details about closed-meeting jurisdiction.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abursey (talk • contribs)

POV

There is way too much WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE focus on the twitter controversy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. This is also not a place for soapboxing or to right great wrongs. Please tone things down, and keep them high level. The twitter thing is ugly and should be discussed, but WP:NPOV, please. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an actual council ruling on what's basically the same sort of thing, except in a smaller, richer offline publication. Not suggesting we use the same law here, just something to ponder. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

COI

There also appears to be COI editing going on here, per the tags I have placed on the article itself and here. Not pretty. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

review

I started to carefully review this article, and the sourcing... sucks. Who's Who is pretty lame; ref #2 is an obscure book that is not available on line and that i would reckon few libraries have (totally OK, but not a great way to go for someone controversial), source #3 is a broken link; source #4 is the general website and while something in that website may support the content, this source does verify the content; source #5 doesn't support the content but is instead some random report produced by the office. Stepping back, a bunch of sources used are press releases from the office, and those are not independent and should be avoided like the plague.

The best sources for Wikipedia content for controversial subjects are independent - like articles from serious newspapers that fact-check.. and that are available online so everyone can verify content based on them. Official bios can be used sparingly. Blogs should be avoided, like press releases should be... (although official press releases can be very useful for the simple facts they are announcing - like a release announcing that Marin was appointed to X position on Y date... but only if those facts have clear biographical signicance, like an appointment to a major job. Not for some accomplishment that he is trying to get people to pay attention to - those are exactly the kind that are to be avoided, and where we need independent sourcing to show that it matters). Eljaydubya‎ and Abursey, since you work for the guy and you have an interest in this article, I'd like to ask you to find really good, independent, reliable sources about Marin's education, background, and current work, and post links to them here. Would you be willing to do that? Thanks. Thissilladia and CheckersBoard you are also very welcome to post links to reliable, independent sources that are not already in the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to sources not in the article as it currently appears? (ie: stub), or do you mean before it was stubbed. Do you need me to resubmit the articles I had used in the controversies section? Thissilladia (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, those are still available in the history. the part that was poorly sourced, was the rest of the article, which I think you never looked at. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes sense. A lot of the original content, to my understanding, was posted a few years ago, and should be cleaner. I would like to propose multiple sources - basically since some of the information in the news media may have actually originated from our office. We'll work on this. One question: Can a YouTube video be considered an official source (if it's a video of someone saying the item in question)? Thanks for the insight. Abursey (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
everything should be WP:secondary sources. If the video is of, say a news broadcast, direct from whoever produced it, it may be OK (not reposted on youtube where it may have been edited). I generally find videos to be bad sources. We use sources 2 ways -- the editor who uses them needs to have read them, and read the other relevant literature, so that the content being generated is really NPOV and presents the mainstream view, giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT, and secondly, they allow other editors and readers to verify the content. For the latter purpose, using a video means somebody checking has to watch the damn thing and listen to find where the content is discussed. in my view, a big waste of time. text is best in my view. but yes, some videos are OK. this is all discussed in WP:RS Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube links can be timestamped by adding a "&t=4m20s" (or whatever time) to the URL. No need to watch the whole thing. And plenty of news outlets have their own official YouTube channels. Sticking to those should be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
You can use them if you like... I will continue to avoid them. :) Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sometimes rather text. Definitely quicker to read, and the secondary context is nice. But now and then, someone will say something that looks one way on paper, but another with the right tone, expression and reaction. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
if the source is a thinly veiled press release, that will show and i will not use it. if it is a newspaper piece where a reporter interviewed folks and wrote an article, that is fine. not sure what you meant by "originated from" our office. anything really originated by your office is not independent and I won't use it. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By 'originated from' I just meant that we may have made a public announcement which was then covered by the media in a news story - sorry for that not being clear. I'll read through the source information, thank you. Abursey (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some sources

gathering some sources that look use-able... Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources added to biography, biography as ombudsman, investigations that seem notable Abursey (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll mark any contribs to this section going forward. Thanks, still learning. Abursey (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you did nothing wrong, i just wanted the notation of who provided the source for my benefit. btw, with regard to everything here, i am looking for sources that provide facts, not rhetoric. On the investigations, what i am looking for are sources that report tangible outcomes. e.g. the genetic testing source is pretty good (Ombudsman report results in tests being offered). The first G20 source is not useful (bunch of talk) and i won't use it; the second one is useful and I probably will. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the book on ombudsmen:

Other

some useful biography:

Investigations that ~seem~ notable:


Andre Marin's link submissions (via Abursey):

Ontario Ombudsman investigations (via Abursey):

Biography as Ombudsman (via Abursey):

Re-appointment controversy (via Abursey):

additional other side of the story sources:

Marin's expenses continue to be an issue, he spends more than provincial ministers who have constituencies to service.
Don't think this was previously cited. Included this because it is by a well-respected political writer. It also addresses the concerns of accountability of this specific (Andre Marin) ombudsman, which underpins all the discourse of his "detractors" and the stories of "controversies." Thissilladia (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tenure at SIU: 21 months between 1996 and 1998; 300+ investigations; 5 charges laid; 0 convictions; sued twice by police officers for malicious prosecution (one dismissal, one confidential settlement) Lurker999 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progressive Conservative MPP Randy Hillier (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington) criticized Marin's personal use of Twitter (discussing his daughter's dating habits), causing another delay of his report on Hydro One.

https://twitter.com/randyhillier/status/575648730247987201 (via Thissilladia) Thissilladia (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Notes on sources
  • General/investigative training course reference contains a single line on the course. If that is all there is on "Sharpening Your Teeth," then that topic is not of encyclopedic interest. There needs to be substantial discussion in a reliable source, or I am not bringing it in. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marin created the group specifically for conducting the large-scale systemic investigations that not been done by the office previously. Sometimes the term 'SORT' is referenced in media coverage, so I added it as more of an explainer.Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it you would bring reliable sources discussing negatives. NPOV does not mean, not negative, and nobody is perfect. Some of us have glaring flaws, even. including me. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Work in progress - I just added more. Abursey (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits today

In this dif, Mdann52 took a big chunk of text out of the article, with edit note "no need to go into this much detail". Had done similar at David Paciocco. Here even more than there, the article needs careful review as it has been subject both to PROMO editing and denigrative editing, EACH of which violate BLP. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this dif is more appropriate thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we could add gym selfies, doggy pics and chili recipes? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

article needs BLP protect....

randomly saw this... I think this article needs full protection. His bio is a complete slam and textbook WP:UNDUE and now it's on Twitter? This would have been a great plotline for Parks & Recreation, for one of the city politicians to have a Wikipedia profile that was being constantly vandalized... Wikimandia (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. That would be disruptive. and your description isnot accurate. the vandalism is quite new and brief. prior to that the articles were being massaged by his PR staff. Wrong one way before, then briefly wrong the other way. it is now actually stubified. discussion of OTRS editor's approach is here at a related article. Discussion about rebuilding (starting with gathering good sources) is above. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it does need to be protected and edited by neutral people. He's an ombudsman - his entire job is picking at public officials and cleaning house, so of course he's going to make enemies. It's been stubified so now 40 percent of his biography is about how much he sucks and "scandals" regarding his use of Twitter? And I thought the people of Syria had it bad living under ISIS.... may we all be protected from the cruel regime of André Marin and his bloody trail of Tweets, eh! Wikimandia (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you want to take over. fine, i will step away. please make sure you take care of the other two articles as well. I am unwatching all of them. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try as soon as I can... André Marin is outside my house and he's armed with tweets!!!!!! aahhhhh send help!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh now he's TWEETING from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!! ahhhh help me Sir Dave Coulier!!!!!! Wikimandia (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you're the boss now, anything I should do? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wikimandia, Jytdog diffused a bad situation and started to repair these pages. I'm really uncertain as to how your language above helps move these pages ahead. How does taking us back to a place where concerns of editors are being made fun of helpful? You have made it clear that you are already dismissing submissions by some of us, even with tons of sources from the Star, Globe & Mail, CTV, London Free Press, etc. It seems like you are going to bring us back to going through the whole thing again. Thissilladia (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI for Wikimandia. Page is being rebuilt and I would like them off permanently. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

FYI, I just restored a blank of the entire page. I have no idea what's going on with this article but it looks like quite the mess and the version I restored seems unbalanced. Please, if you have a problem with the content of the page, bring it up on the talk page and/or fix it with a reasonable explanation for what you're doing in the edit summary. Removing whole chunks of content or all of the content without discussion is not helpful. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and COPYVIO issues

When "paraphrasing" any article, using the exact same wording from the article is a violation of Wikipedia WP:COPYVIO. Using government data sources to reach conclusions not separately reached by secondary reliable sources is a violation of WP:OR. Adding material which gives an implication of actual legal wrongdoing, absent a strong reliable source making such claims, is contrary to WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPCRIME. I do not care who Marin is, or why anyone is so anxious to make accusations, but WP requires we be careful on biographies of living persons, and so I have removed what I consider to be material which violates these policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you :) what a mess! Much better :) CheckersBoard (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria

Proposal to delete page do to failure to meet notability criteria

-In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules. -at best some information from the article can be merged into other related articles with less triviality and make other articles more consisitent. -article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing. Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry and has been so from the beginning without any substantial change -topic might be better as a blog elsewhere -career postings can be listed under the appropriate articles

Essentially overall information presented isn't substantial enough to warrant a single article on this particular. CheckersBoard (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andr%C3%A9_Marin&diff=680546396&oldid=680434917

Leave a Reply