User talk:JzG/Archive 60

McTimoney College of Chiropractic

Thank you for your comments on how this could be improved, unfortunately I was away and didn't catch the message before the article was deleted. I've added more sources and expanded on why I think this particular Chiropractic school is notable (certainly within the UK). Please let me know if you think it could do with further information. Pishmishy (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

COI

Seeing as links on your talk page reveal your real life identity ref here. Noting your position on the editorial board and given your editing of helmet laws it may well be advisable to declare your advocacy in this area. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's no secret, never has been. I have zero commercial interest and as with Richard my interest in the subject predates BHRF. You are clutching at straws in an obvious attempt to get back at people who nailed at the Gibraltar arbitration. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you sadly presume that I have any lingering sense of grievance against you, then you are very much mistaken. Your comments do however betray you continue to hold a lingering grievance over your block. Why you blame me for that remains a mystery to me, seeing as I had nothing to do with the report that led to your block and I did urge the blocking admin to unblock. And you never did say thank you for rescuing the article you'd been working on.

If it is no secret, then you really you shouldn't have a problem with declaring it? Now you can either take this for what it is, a genuine suggestion that you declare your advocacy or assume bad faith that I'm trying to get back at you. Your choice, to be honest I really, really don't care which you make. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to declare. I was first involved in cycle safety in the mid 1970s, was on a student road safety board in the late 70s, and have never stopped being interested in it. At one point I was a helmet advocate ,now I am not, because I have studied the data in much more detail and changed my mind. There was no conflict of interest, then, there is no conflict of interest now, just an interest. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being on the editorial board of advocacy organisation regarding bicyle helmets, whilst editing articles in that subject area. That could all to easily be perceived as a WP:COI, whether you choose to declare it or not is your decision but I would continue to suggest you do so. If you have any doubts take it to WP:COIN for a second opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not an advocacy organisation, it's a group that studies the issue. The clue is in the word "research". HTH, HAND. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mill alert

Marbella University. What say you? DS (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Loring Ward and Nefsis

Hi there - see you've removed the Loring Ward page since you said (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: All sources are namechecks or churnalism, WP:SPA, blatant advert.) Under these guidelines this page did not have churnalism since the references used were third party sources. If I recall there were quite a few editors who contributed to this page as well. Perhaps we can reconsider re-posting this article.

As for Nefsis - the references are from third party sources and from product reviews. Not sure how this one is also considered to be churnalism also.

Thoughts? --Karebear 1022 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw a post by Karebear at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Help with a deleted article and one that has been proposed. A7 was declined in the past (admin only link). Loring Ward didn't seem promotional enough for G11 to me. The article was 4 months old and I think it deserves an AfD run like Nefsis. Google News archives has 217 hits on "Loring Ward". [1] says it was to be bought for about $87 million in 2008 (I'm not sure what happened). The company site says "Loring Ward has more than $6.6 billion in assets under management as of March 2011." The company is not small and could be notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a user creating a walled garden of WP:COI articles. If anyone provably unconnected with the subject wants to create a proper article that will be fine. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth focussing on the Assante Corporation story which has easy to find sources such as the NY Times and was what LW used to be called - example source: Shropshire, Kenneth L.; Davis, Timothy (2008), The business of sports agents (2 ed.), University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 46, ISBN 9780812240849. Fæ (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 Sock

Hi Guy, Irvine22 is up to his usual at Dave Snowden, socking as User:Sean Staunery. Would you mind taking a look please? Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I'll delete the sock report --Snowded ^TALK 11:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, very blatant WP:DUCK, no need to trouble anyone else with it.

My thanks too. Daicaregos (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And mine. That's the thing about Stauners - they just keep popping up all over the place. Just as well you are so keen to get on top of them. Bonnie Stauner (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I enjoy a nice game of Whack-A-Mole. Bring 'em on. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

and again here --Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Figes

This article which you've worked on in the past is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Orlando Figes. I think you may have had some BLP concerns about it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly not the most informative template message I've ever received. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Loring Ward, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Asa Mader

I've restored this as I felt that it was worth discussing at AFD, where you are of course welcome to offer an opinion. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Prod declined, but at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboform — Scientizzle 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Individual action on climate change

I ran across a large unwikified new article today called Individual action on climate change and marked it for A10 as the text was copy and pasted directly from Individual and political action on climate change. DGG declined the speedy saying that it doesn't apply as a split. I'd understand if the text was removed from the other page but as it stands, a brand new editor has copied the text, placed it in a new article, and done nothing with the text left on the original article. I'm failing to see why we (WP) would want to leave identical text on two pages but it's not uncommon for me to be completely puzzled by DGG's actions.

I had planned on having the article userfied for the new editor so that I could help him work on it out of mainspace but I'm not sure how to proceed now. Any suggestions? OlYeller^Talktome 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DGG has gone back and done the work needed for the split. Problem solved. OlYeller^Talktome 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Teddy bear parachuting

The article Teddy bear parachuting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a very notable idea

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)