Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:17, 21 June 2010

This is GregJackP's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 31 days

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.

Java to UML Sequence Diagram

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/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.

deletions

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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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)

15th Regiment Alabama Infantry

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)

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)

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

Spaceduck

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)

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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

AfD nomination of Spaceduck

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Zunco

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

A tag has been placed on Zunco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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) ==

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

GERYES TAXI

Re. Misplaced Pages: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)

Re: Don Martin (public affairs consultant)‎ PROD removal

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)

• I would recommend that you review Misplaced Pages: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)

Talkback

GiftigerWunsch 12:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Morenooso, you may want to re-check WP:NPA and WP:AGF, as well as the other relevant policies of Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages uses consensus - try being more open to others opinions. Regards. GregJackP (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs

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)

DYK for 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry

On 31 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Amén =

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)

Talkback

GiftigerWunsch 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

GiftigerWunsch 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Don Martin (Austin, Texas)

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)

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)

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)

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 12:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

Before I call it a night

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 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed wiki page for Khan Manuel

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)

Dhanmondi Ideal College

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)

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)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

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)

Request for mediation rejected

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)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Cory Allen (Musician)

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)

• An AfD discussion is a formal process to determine if an article is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Don Martin (public affairs)

June 2010

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy clearly states. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• 'Forgive my interruption GregJackP, but Nightmare please show me where the the incident report is filed and point me to a "supe" because I darn sure would like to go over in detail the numerous false accusations you have made about the citation articles, about me, about the validity of the book, about alledged collusion, and about advertising as well as highly inappropriate and false edits you have made without discussion. ' Dmartinaus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• Please do not remove comments from my user talkpage. GregJackP (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copies of all reference articles provided here for vetting

Reference Articles

All articles are available on-line at click here

• Fortunately these can actually be skimmed rather easily and quickly. I added one note only (in green) as a preface to certain articles without editorializing, and I highlighted the relevant Don Martin sections in red to make it easy to find them quickly by skimming. In reviewing the articles I now think that reference 9 can probably be deleted and replaced by 15; and 25 can probably be deleted in favor of 26. Please do let me know if you have looked at the web page. Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins/GA1

Article is about done (unless something else comes up). Very fast review indeed - and very helpful comments which did push it to higher quality. Thank you!

There are a couple of points left for you with comment, on the GA review page. I cited a little more exactly than might be usual in order to better comply with the aims of WP:V and WP:CITE. I've explained the reason on that page.

Thanks. FT2  16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cites updated, thanks. FT2  18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jessi0421 Edits to Donald G. Martin page

GregJackP I absolutely understand your concerns. I am also going to copy this to Sarah's page where Nightmare has suggested placing an Afd for purposes of killing the article once and for all. Re your concerns: 1) Sarah and I discussed the issues of 4084BT previously and 4804BT backed out. As for austin3301 he admitted earlier to being too close to the subject overall (and I beleive he said too "heated") and recused himself from editing, and indicated that most if not all of his edits have already been reverted by others. But as to Jesse0421 I have my suspicions who this is and if so he does in fact know me from a PREVIOUS employee relationship from several years ago -- not recent -- but we have ABSOLUTELY not in ANY way communicated about editing the piece or about edits to make. In fact we have NEVER EVEN discussed the page at all although he may well have heard about it in general through others. There is absolutely no collusion and no relationship betwen myself and him.. However I certainly understand that as someone who knows me and my history pretty well that he has tried to make both favorable edits, but also edits for accuracy. The edits I saw seemed A) fairly neutral to me, B) they clean up up obvious basic errors that other editors could not have known C)he explained the rationale of each and every edit and said that they are welcome to be reverted and D) that these conclude all of the edits he was going to make.

I think we are really down to you, me, Nightmare and perhaps Sarah on finishing the article, plus these one set only of recent edits from Jesse0421 offered in the spirit of cleaing up items he is aware of. I have not review them closely but the don't appear to me to "favor" me or add advertising as Nighmare purports. Admittedly I am biased but I honesstly don't see that ANY of them add an advertising interest that NIghtmare alledges. I'll go bck and look and if they do I'll recommend they be changed. Several correct significant errors by Nightmare in his editing (EXAMPLE: changed to "wrote' book versus 'published" book - I was not the publisher; Arcadia Publishing was). I'd like to hear your take on the actual edits. If any of them need to be reverted for some reason then they definitely should be reverted. I am concerned however that Nightmare is unwilling to accept ANY edits that are not his and is working behind the scenes to kill the page as indicated in writing above. We've come too far for that I hope. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Sorry to butt in on your talk page GregJackP, but wanted to address Dmartinaus on this issue. 4084BT lists an email address on his user talk page that indicates his name is "Ray Henry." If I remember correctly, that is the same name that Austin disclosed as his "real" name (but it's been a while). Both Austin and 4084 have made edits and either signed your name or have spoken in the first person as if they were in fact Don Martin, as opposed to someone who knows him. See here and here and here for 4084BT edits, one of which is signed "Don Martin". See here and here and here for Austin3301 edits in which Austin complains of his edits being reverted and then rewords them, when it was actually Dmartinaus' edits that had been reverted. Also, see here and here for Austin edit/revision that appears to be made by a Don Martin persona. These edits are troubling to me because several editors interacted with Dmartinaus, Austin3011 and 4048BT in the course of AfD discussion, talk page extended discussion and much haggling over editing. NineteenNightmares got blocked as a result of some of those discussions, presumably because he got so frustrated. I do not know how to do a sock puppet investigation or if this is the type of scenario that warrants it, but this is troubling.

GregJackP, you have much more experience than I do on Misplaced Pages. Do you have any thoughts about how to proceed or is this an issue that should be left alone? And with respect to Dmartinaus, if I have drawn the wrong conclusion, I apologize. If I have not drawn the wrong conclusion -- I still understand the stress and angst involved in having an article written about you that you feel is painting you in a bad light or is not accurate. I would not want to be in your shoes. Minor4th (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor - I understand your questioning this and especially about Austin3301 (who is NOT me but is someone close to me who got all hot and bothered in the lawsuit discussion -- a fairly sensitive subject to many -- and who actually admitted and revealed on the talk page previously that he had a conflict of interest and dropped out of all discussions and editing. He was not a very good editor eeither about his identity. Sarah and I have also discused the 4804BT situation involving dual use of an office computer. As a result both are completely gone and not editing or commenting. Rather than sockpuppetry this was probably a very valid case of "meatpuppetry" I am told. The latest addition, however, Jessie 0421, I am about 90% sure is someone who used to work for me several years ago and who knows my history but who has not been contacted me in any way about this. I have not contacted him, and we have not spoken or discussed edits or interests of any kind in any form or fashion. Also I have not solicited anyone to register or to make edits or votes in support of me. (It's no secret around the office that I have been upset and frustrated about the article having mistakes etc. so I guess it is not surprising that this may have eventually gotten to someone like Jessie0421, who perhaps knows abit about editing Misplaced Pages, who wanted to help entirely on their own). But I have not even tried to check as to who it is because I don't want to establish a connection. Absolutely no one is involved at this time that I know of related to me in any way. As for Dmartinaus, that is me, Don Martin, and always has been. I have had voluminous discussions on the talk page, but am not editing. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

PS, I am surprised but humored to learn about the use of Ray Henry. "Ray L. Henry" is a name we have used around the office for years for a ficticious charachter relating to the Austin American-Statesman. May not be humours to you but was a fuuy surprise to read in your comments above for me. Meanwhile I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. This has been a bit of a comedy of errors. Also, Austin 3001 and 4804BT can certainly be blocked from further editing if you all this it necessary, and I suppose (but would hate to be silenced about my own article) but I can be blocked as well if you all so decide. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Minor4th, I initiated an SPI on this, but it's not hard to do. If you go to WP:SPI, it has step by step instructions. You need to make sure that you have good evidence on this, like what you outlined above, and include it on the investigation request. I hope this helps. GregJackP (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Minor4th (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment re Nightmare

Sarah - One last comment re Nightmare, and not being overly accusatory but just stating the undeniable truth: Rememeber he is the one who said in no uncertain terms that "many of the articles in the references do not even mention Martin at all." That statement was made up out of thin air and has conclusive been proven false with the posting of every article. He also attacked the validity of the book and my authorship, also subsequently proven false. Now he is asking for a second Afd. It appears to me that he has a strong bias for killing the article through numerous allegations, with a disregard as to accuracy of his allegations. I am fine, however, with his continued attempts to clean up the article, remove bias or advertising, so long as the edits are accurate. Jeesie's edits show several such edits by Nightmare were inaccurate. Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I would ask that the edits NOT be reverted until everyone (you, Nightmare, Sara) check them for acuracy against Nightmares edits of the article. Thanks Dmartinaus (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP Reversions 6/15/10

First, GJP and I are absolutely not related. In fact were the most bitterest of enemies (no offense JGP) during the lawsuit debate. See Archive 1 or ask User:Minor4th for backup on this. Here is my feedback on your changes and reversions: 1) Remove "walk friendly" village term. AGREE' Although note it is in the title of the article and is not MY term. 2) Revert changes to lawsuit langage. AGREE 3) Remove Ital from DMPA heading. AGREE 4) Request cite re size of real estate development. AGREE 5) Request cite on Legi/Slate. Well...Nightmare removed both cites on this. But I'll AGREE and seek out a better cite if you wish. This is perhaps THE most significant event in the article in my opinion, and another editor suggested it should be it's own article as well, but I don't have enough citations from 1980 to do that. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

See my comments onthe main article talk page. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Luis Garcia-Fanjul and the copyvio template

Hi,

Just a note about the above, the {{copyvio}} template is meant for text copyright issues only. Any non-text media should be handled according to the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files instead. Regards, MLauba 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.