Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

Hi, GregJackP. I'm a new user of wikipedia, and I just published my first arctile: GeoSOS. But because some reasons the article will be deleted. Could you tell me how to improve it to prevent the deletion? If I shouldn't add the references by myself? And the authors of some referenced papers provided their ideas about this software, how should I deal with this situation? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danli wiki (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you need to show that the software is notable, by reliable and verifiable sources. The problem the article has right now is that almost all of the references are from people that are involved in designing the software, meaning that they are self-published and not suitable for proving notability. You need to find references that are independent from the software. Good luck, GregJackP (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danli wiki (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written with an intention to promote the tool. It was written with the intention that if someone is looking to do reverse engineering in java how can they do it. Also the article's intention is no different than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart4j.

If you think that the article needs some improvements, please write them on my talk page and I will try and make those changes. Please try to be specific.

Greetings GregJackP - Just letting you know that I'm going to revert your recent edit at Los Angeles Port Police Association, Inc. as per the A7 template guidelines (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.) and the principle of "Don't bite the newcomers". Any organisation that can claim a membership of over 42,000 can surely be considered significant. As I pointed out at the original speedy delete editor's talk page, there's plenty of time for an AfD if the article can't come up with references. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! --Technopat (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregJackP,

I'm fairly new to Wiki and I was wondering if you would be able to help me out. A page I created Jym_fitness was deleted and I was wondering what I can do to the page so it is more suitable and more of a benefit to the Wikipedia community. For example I don't understand the difference between the page I made and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitbit any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelfdavid (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Nyxaus's talk page. -- ~~~~~

According to the edit history you tagged the article Mark D. Roberts was tagged for deletion. This article was also tagged with:

{{AFC submission|||ts=dated and time|u=Username|ns=0}}

Articles tagged with this tag are Article for Creation submissions. If the article is in mainspace it should be moved to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Articlename" and the redirect should be tagged for deletion. The creator should then be informed of the move. I discovered this article today while looking at the misplaced submissions list. I moved this article to the AFC space and removed the tag. Wikipedia probably loses a minimum of 3 misplaced submissions a week because they were misplaced and tagged for deletion for not being formatted/written correctly. Before you tag a article for deletion could you please check for this tag? Thank you --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg. Can you please tell me what I have to do to avoid deletion! I have two days working on it but every change that I made appears wrong! I have placed real references of serious companies etc.. I don´t understand what´s the problem? Thanks Greg for your help ans support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz Magazine (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg: I have two days trying to make this happend but I don´t understand why every change that I make it´s wrong! Please help me. I have provided serious references of professional companies etc... I´m trying to avoid deletion! Thanks for your help and suport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz Magazine (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jazz. It will probably be easier to go over this point by point.

• User name - your user name indicates that it belongs to a group or organization, see WP:GROUPNAME. See WP:UNC on how to fix this.
• Conflict of Interest - your upload of the picture used on the article indicates that you own the work, and that it is a creation of Skinfill Entertainment Records. This indicates that you may have a conflict of interest and should not be creating or editing the article in question. BTW, changing the file, etc., does not remove the earlier edit.
• References - the self-published reference is useless for notability, as are the two references are from companies that use him as an endorser. References need to be verifiable and reliable sources.
• Notability - Carlos has to be notable, and as a drummer, should meet the standards of WP:MUSICBIO, which it does not appear that he meets from the article. This must be shown by references as indicated above. I wasn't able to find any that established his notability, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Good luck. GregJackP (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg. I have changed the references and info in the picture. Also I´ve created a signature in order to change my User Name but still appears the same! Please help me to do this easier. I´m not a HTML expert like you.

Please help me to finish this issue. Even I tried to use another pic that I´ve uploaded but it doesn´t appear! Please help me. That pic it´s called CarlosSkinfill. I tried to change it but I don´t know why (Not apopear)

What else? Thanks Greg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz Magazine (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References to Wikipedia are not valid for notability. Click on the links in my above message for more information on what you need for your sources. Also, be advised that changing your username by making a request (again, see WP:UNC) does not change the fact that you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be editing the article. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, you've been doing heroic work find problematic articles, and most of your deletion requests are excellent, & Ive been deleting the articles. However, you really should make an effort to check for sources, at least in google News Archive, if it appears from the face of the article there is some chance of notability. and remember, please, that BLP PROD is only for use when there are no references at all to verify any of the basic facts that might be relevant to notability -- they don't have to be good enough RSs to meet WP:GNG. And one other thing: if it sounds at all like a press release, check for copyvio, and add that to any other reasons for speedy--it's more important and less debatable than questions of notability. About half the time, articles for unknown performers and the like turn out to be copies from their web page or the like. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you DGG, I appreciate it. I try to check the above (plus GBooks/GScholar) before any deletion request, whether CSD, PROD, and AFD. I was under a different impression for BLPPRODs though - I was operating under the idea that if there were no references listed in the article for a BLP, then it was to be tagged for BLPPROD, and that once a reference was added, the the BLPPROD tag was to be removed. I based this on the procedure listed in WP:BLPPROD that was recently changed to require the reference in the article itself. I'll also be careful to look for copyvios. Again, thanks for your comments - I appreciate it. GregJackP (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are referring to [1]. This section is still disputed. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I was under the impression that it was already Wiki policy. Thanks. GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a sad day when it becomes WP policy that the mere dispute over the reliability of a source is reason enough to delete an article. The place to resolved such disputes is afd, or if more focused discussion is needed, at the RS noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw, you apparently did not check Park Steward Robert O. Binnewies in google News -- 3 NYTimes articles on the first page of results, one primarily about him. In my opinion, which may not be uniformly shared, a reference to a published book by the subject defeats BLP Prod -- but that's hardly necessary as the reason here. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I trouble you, please, to return to 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, and re-rate it based upon it being pretty much finished, now? I know that when you initially rated it "start" class, it wasn't at all complete; since I've gotten it done, I'd appreciate a reassessment, if you have the time to give a new one. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nomination for "DYK?"! I got the references insterted; let me know what you think! Thanks for your time and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that (the B-class rating!)! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted your (second) reversion to this article - you originally restored a deleted speedy tag and then thought better of it. I'm pretty sure the editor who deleted it is a sockpuppet of the author, so I felt that the tag should stay. BTW it's already been speedied once today as a hoax. Cheers. andy (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. It seemed to me to be a hoax, but I saw the talkpage comments and did not have time to check it out, so I reverted my restoration of the CSD until I could figure it out. GregJackP (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I don't want to oppose you. I understand your reasons for deleting the photo evidence, and I agree with you more or less. But I just wanted to make it clear that the article is not a "hoax", as Andy has been chanting and as others have been quick to parrot. If you would help me by suggesting what needs to be done, then maybe we can improve the article together. Sound fair? Chazella (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, while it "may be" real, it may also be a hoax. Additionally, Spaceduck has not shown that he meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. I have no interest in improving the article, it is not an area that I'm really concerned with. I am, however, interested in the integrity of Wikipedia and making sure that all articles meets the appropriate standards. If you wish to help keep the article, I would suggest finding verifiable and reliable sources that show notability. Good luck. GregJackP (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSICBIO: The artist is notable if he "has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." That's the whole point of me dwelling on the BBC documentary. Please, take an hour to watch the documentary. You may even be entertained, even if you're not a fan of the cello. Chazella (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spaceduck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP

I appreciate the response about my article. Is there any way that I can receive the original article so that I can make it Wiki-Approved?

Thanks, Dcolyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcolyr (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregJackP, Zunco is a well known company in Colombia. Through wikipedia is possible to channel this recognition. The article does not contain commercial references and all information contained tries to be as objective as possible. The article has less than 24 hours of set up and all edits made so far tend to convey information in a clear and transparent. Please help me improve my work without having to remove it.

A tag has been placed on Zunco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dacelas (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ==[reply]

Here I sent some samples of the recognition of the mark in the Latin market. These are articles from various newspapers in which they emphasize the use of industrial materials for the manufacture of handbags and employment generation in poor areas of Bogota.

• Sitio Web de Zunco Accesorios
• De la talega a la cartera - www.elespectador.com
• Zunco: concepto artesanal que nació en las plazas de mercado hoy es moda colombiana en el exterior - www.portafolio.com.co
• Un negocio convencional no tradicional - www.dinero.com

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GERYES TAXI / GERYES TAXI

No need for AfD for things like that; CSD would've been fine as G11 again.

Gone now, anyway; just wanted to let you know for future reference - to avoid unnecessary AfD's. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now incumbent upon you to improve the article, otherwise the PROD can be re-established. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend that you review Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. First, the article was prodded for notability, yet there were 29 references. The references show that he is clearly notable. Second, I have no responsibility to do anything with the article. Third, once a prod has been contested, it may not be re-established on the article's page, you have to go to a full AfD discussion. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Morenooso's talk page.
Message added 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mis-issue me another warning, I will consider that a WP:NPA. And, it can have ramifications. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morenooso, I'd recommend taking another cool-down away from the computer. I've already notified GregJackP that he misused the template, and this sort of response isn't helping the situation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Morenooso, you may want to re-check WP:NPA and WP:AGF, as well as the other relevant policies of Wikipedia. You can consider it whatever you want, but there was no personal attack involved. You may also want to look at your own actions, as far as being confrontational with anyone that disagrees with you. Wikipedia uses consensus - try being more open to others opinions. Regards. GregJackP (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when proposing articles for deletion as unsourced BLPs. In the case of Lewis Linford(actor), the article made unsourced, negative claims about its subject (ie that the subject was arrested) and so qualified for deletion under CSD G10 and should have gone a lot sooner than it did. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message about the article of Amén, I changed some important things now, put some links to prove the statements at the beginning ! Would like to have your opinion! --Sunlight14 (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Don Martin (Austin, Texas) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I have declined to participate in mediation. I do not believe that it was appropriate nor fair for you to take sides with only limited information from the individual who filed the request. Whether or not the intent is to stay neutral, it would be more appropriate to hear from more than one party before sending the matter to AN/I, and it gives the appearance of favoritism. If another mediator were to take the case, I would reconsider, especially since I believe there is consensus for the section as written. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg. Thanks for your comments. My referral of the dispute to ANI for administrator attention was not in any way a judgment of the dispute or of its participants, including yourself. As I'm sure you know, BLPs such as the Don Martin article must be treated with more sensitivity than the average article; this applies doubly so when the subject of the biography has expressed a concern or filed a complaint, as Don Martin did at the request for mediation page. Upon observing that the subject had complained about the edits made to the article, it was necessary for me to ask an administrator to evaluate the article and the dispute (with a view to remedying any problems therein). I stress that this was not an expression of support for any one side to the dispute, but rather a knee-jerk reaction upon observing that there potentially has been problematic treatment of a BLP article. You should also know that my decision to flag the article for administrator investigation was essentially in my capacity as an editor; the only reason that I didn't look into the conduct of the contributors to the article (I'm also an administrator) was that I was probably going to have to accept or reject the request at a later point. Additionally, know that I will at no point be the editor who mediates the dispute; my involvement in the RFM was as the person designated to vet RFMs for suitability for mediation (as outlined at WP:Mediation Committee#Chair). I would stress again that I have not prejudged the facts of the dispute, and ask you to reconsider your declination to participate. I've watchlisted your talk page, so I'll see any further comments you make; and I will of course respond to any questions or counterpoints that you make. Regards, AGK 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregJackP; thanks for informing me about the failed attempt to contact me for mediation. I've taken the appropriate measures to correct my name on the mediation page and sign the register now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AGK, thank you for letting me know what your thoughts were on this - it clarifies the process for me, as this was the 1st RfM that I have been involved in. I understand the need and requirement to be extremely careful with BLP articles, and try to keep that in mind when editing such articles. In the instant case, I believe that the RfM is a moot issue - SheffieldSteel, the admin who handled the AN/I matter came and looked at the matter thoroughly. He proposed new text for the disputed section, and a clear consensus was reached on the content issue using his text.

It seemed as this was attempt to keep properly sourced and cited material out of a BLP article merely due to the negative nature of the material. As the consensus content was substantially the same as the material that I had posted (abeit written in a much clearer and concise manner), it seems to me that those feelings have been validated.

I was also frustrated, as there seemed to be a clear case of sockpuppetry by the subject of the article - myself, Giftiger, and Minor4th had all come to the same conclusion and I was about to start an SPI when the content matter was resolved. I would rather not do that now, the accounts involved are primarily SPAs, focused on the article in question and related articles.

If you could let me know if I should go back to the RfM and agree, or if can just be closed as been resolved, I would appreciate it. GregJackP (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to act on this myself until tomorrow, but I thought you might be interested in knowing that evidence has emerged that Dmartinaus is a sockpuppet of Austin, and most likely the individual responsible is in fact Don Martin. This was made evident by the fact that Austin claimed that I removed his comments, when I removed two personal attacks, both left by Dmartinaus. At some point tomorrow I will probably compile some evidence and file a sock puppet report, and possibly ask for checkuser confirmation as it may be necessary in this case. I thought I'd let you know in case you would like to file this report sooner. Unfortunately it's getitng late here and I have a university examination tomorrow morning, so I may not be able to act on this for a while.

I'd suggest you review the evidence before submitting ay reports though, of course. If you choose to file a report I'll add any additional evidence to it appropriate whenever I get chance.

Thanks,

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregJackP

I have added certain citations about Khan Manuels notability mainly that his album went to #2 and #1 slots... on the talk page it goes into more detail... please take a look on the talk page for Khan Manuel.

The issues that were pointed to have been fixed on the page as well. In addition to the notability here is a link to a preview of a recording of Manuel and also World renowned guitarist Frank Gambale.

http://www.truthinshredding.com/2010/05/frank-gambalekhan-manuel-when-two.html

Biography issues have also been looked at.

Warm regards, Guitarmania01 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the article and your edits while doing hangon patrolling and I just have to comment that in light of its other fine attributes, it's a shame that Dhanmondi Ideal College obviously doesn't have an English Department... Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I tagged it for deletion, I felt a tinge of sadness that some future college student might miss out on the "Powerful generator" or the "Garden with lot of Beautiful Flower". Clearly, Dhanmondi "Ideal" College could use a marketing department as well. 95j (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Don Martin (Austin, Texas), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hello GregJackP, I am new to editing Wiki articles. I modified the article in reference to the AfD discussion request that the article have references added. I thought since references were added which indisputably verified information and notability that the it was OK to remove the deletion tag. I'm new here and want to add a lot of articles - for future reference, can you tell my why, if the initial reason for proposing deletion was satisfied, it is not OK to remove the deletion tag? Thanks! Lotusleaves (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD discussion is a formal process to determine if an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and runs until an administrator closes it. Second, the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. #1 (thesoundprojector) is a trivial, one paragraph mention and is not a reliable source (blog). #2 (tokafi) is not a reliable source (as covered at WP:RS), although it is more in depth. #3 (cory-allen.com) is self-published and not reliable nor independent. #4 (quiet design) is self-published and not reliable nor independent. #5 (the wire) does not mention the subject of the article. #6 (cyclicdefrost) may or may not be reliable, but only mention Allen in passing (trivial). Notability has not been established, nor are the references "indisputably" reliable. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I disagree with how you've applied the guidelines of triviality or notability, and for some reason seem to be recreationally coarse in trying to keep an artist that sells thousands of CDs and runs a record label out of the information banks of the public, a feature in print in a physical copy of Wire Magazine Issue #303, May 2009 is sitting here next to me. Although you don't accept the other (what seem to me very clear via the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines ) references to facts of this article, this one is unquestionably indisputable. In what way does this in-print feature need to be displayed and referenced in order to satiate your view of notability? Cheers, Lotusleaves (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Until just now, you never cited Issue #303 of Wire Magazine. You cited Issue #310, which did not mention Allen. Based on what you have cited as other refs, I would have to see the article to even begin to look like it really was a valid ref. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How close did you look at those reference links? One issue was a year round up which contained a reprint of the original article. Peace.Lotusleaves (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already started an incident for this article based on the proprietary way you and others are handling it, which is a violation of WP:Ownership as well as WP: NPOV and WP:COI. I welcome you to bring anything I have done to a supe so they can see what has been going on. I will continue to edit the article to meet Wiki standards as right now it reads like a PR "pump" vanity piece for the guy rather than a Wikipedia article about facts. As it stands, the article itself is being used to promote a private business, and one that helps corporations alter the public mood to allow for development. I would also caution you to stop focusing on me and focus on content, as the Wikipedia policy clearly states. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Please do not dump your warnings on my page. You've previously been warned by an admin to stop. Please do so. GregJackP (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Warn me all you want. You are just trying to protect the article by making threats. I welcome some outside input on this one, believe me. If you keep up using block threats to try and control the article, I will report you as well. My only intent is to make improvements at Wikipedia, not control a puff piece on a friend or a acquaintence of mine. Since I believe this person is not worthy of an article on Wiki and because he is quite obviously attempting to manipulate the course of the article, even from the outside, I will continue to focus on it and improvements and objective edits will continue until it doesn't read like a PR piece. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]