Talk:Mark Bourrie

Should be deleted

This person is of zero interest or note and the whole thing seems to be an ego trip. Any reason not to delete this? CraigBurley (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this article was written by Mark Bourrie himself. He has not accomplished anything worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7398:6400:F149:E4FF:A455:A01C (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Promotional

Mr. Bourrie sounds like quite the accomplished man, but this article goes into far too much detail relative to his importance. Knoper (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Too much detail" is a very strange complaint. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't if the article goes into amateur genealogy. Knoper (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think of myself as a reasonable person, one who is only trying to trim this article down to reasonable size given the subject. Given the previous deletion requests, I'd say I'm in the middle. Please be reasonable and discuss. Knoper (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Request page protection from Knoper, removal of all BLP-violating material from this talk page.

knoper's claim that the subject of this article "targets" other people is both libellous and shows his lack of NPOV. 184.151.246.62 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think the page needs protecting you need to go to WP:RFPP if there are blp issues the correct place is WP:BLPN. Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Knoper and have removed the excessive details. Just to give a random example, I rather doubt a 1995 book discusses where Bourrie's interest in shipwrecks comes from. This purported source doesn't mention Bourrie at all, for all I can tell. Neither does this source, which doesn't look particularly reliable in the first place. At best we were dealing with original synthesis here, something explicitly not appropriate on Wikipedia. If anything the article should be further shortened; there are entire sections that don't cite any references. Huon (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record as well, it is very clear that I was referring to the articles on Wikipedia (see the possessive case on "kinsella's", for example) as targets, which given the abundant history located in the talk pages and in the arbitrations/sock puppet drama of a few years back (see above infobox), is justified. However, to be on the safe side, I will remove the remark. Knoper (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, after looking through the sock puppet logs through the Ceraurus link above, I'm going to recuse myself from the article entirely. Life's too short to start climbing that mountain. Knoper (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bourrie on Canadaland

Just throwing this in here....at about 8:50, Bourrie discusses editing this talk page and others on Wikipedia. http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/duffy-fallout Knoper (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So what? Bourrie is allowed to discuss this entry and any others. In fact, he actually says in some posts on archived versions of this page that he wants to have input in the article. You can see his posts on this page, with his name on them. This page has been a troll-magnet for years. Knoper is agenda-pushing again. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't, it's just here for reference given above comments and previous concerns. If you'd define what "agenda" I'm "pushing", you'd make far more sense. That and getting an actual username. Knoper (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly a mystery or something sinister. Scroll up near the top and see his posts. He says things like "I'm Mark Bourrie" and signs his posts with his own name. As for my getting a user name, I will when Wikipedia requires people to take responsibility by posting and editing under their own name. An IP is just as good as an avatar name, as far as I'm concerned. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As the kids say, whatever. As I've advised, I'm done with this article. In the future I'd recommend against editing the article with "Add new award nomination. Congratulations" as an edit summary. Knoper (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

IP attacks

More IP doxing/outing attempts going on. Several have been blocked already. There's a new one today (two edits)Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate helpme request: See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Canadaland is a blog post. Idea of using it to quote a scoldong journalism prof seems like libel. Can you just say anything you want on Wilipedia and use any source you find on the Internet? GoldLilydog (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure User:GoldLilydog how it's any more of a blog post, than that Mark Bourrie's own Fairpress website. And surely the person has far more integrity than Mark Bourrie, with Mark Bourrie's history of paid editing of Wikipedia and hmm, reading deeper just now, there seems to be evidence that Mark Bourrie is carrying out some kind of vendetta against Canadaland - perhaps we should add more information about this into the article about Mark Bourrie! Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I take it your edits are payback for the accurate FairPress criticisms of Brown's attacks on WE? Seems Nfitz is hiding behind page protection to make an attack page against Bourrie in response to his Canadaland writings. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:7034:60A4:AE46:9091 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment from GoldLilydog

This article is about me. Much of the Duffy material is inaccurate and the quote from Waddell is defamatory. Wikipedia should not be used for smearing people.

-- Mark Bourrie— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldLilydog (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)