User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/November 2009

Dan Pena page

jo, Dreaded Walrus, what's with the Dan Pena article? It has all been deleted before because of being advertising and none of the "facts" verified. Book self published, London Stock Exchange doesn't know shit bout his IPO or his company and in other parts of the world the authorities are investigating against him: http://www.cybercellmumbai.com/write-ups/cyber-criminals-zero-in-on-airlines doesn't look so good in wikipedia

Hi again, didn't know how to reach you. But the pdf I found only shows a small article on the right side, not the main article of that pdf. However I found additional sources that I added. Hope that helps. --Esinclair52 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I get messages left here, and I have your talk page on my watchlist, so I will usually notice messages you leave on there too. The discussion about the pdf is probably best carried out on Talk:Daniel S. Peña Sr., now that the subject has been brought up there. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c}

Hi Dreaded, Can we just tag this article for deletion. Most of the article content offensive to propriety or morality to the person and this does not comply with wiki's policy I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.147.97 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The article has literally only just finished its recent AfD (Articles for Deletion), where it was determined the article should be kept. When it was nominated the article was pretty much a puff piece with very few citations. During the course of the AfD numerous citations were found which established notability in the eyes of people who participated in that discussion. As it happens, most of those citations were probably not what the article's originator had in mind when creating the article. If you would like to nominate the article for deletion again, the easiest way to do this would be to create an account, which will then allow you to create a deletion subpage, but considering it was kept literally hours ago, I wouldn't say it would be worthwhile.

As Phil Bridger said, this does look like a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The article had previously been created at least four times, each time by User:Izonetech-ph, who seems to have a blatant conflict of interest. Each time it was deleted as either non-notable, overly promotional in tone, or as a copyright violation of one of his official online biographies. This time it went through a full deletion discussion, and this ended up with sources being found which do show notability, if not quite the type the original author intended.

To summarise: If you need help going through the Articles for Deletion process, feel free to ask. Just don't expect it to be successful due to the most recent one having closed hours ago. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dreaded need your advice. The courts in India have cleared Mr Pena from all charges. By still keeping this piece in the Controversy section it sounds defamatory. What is the best way to improve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onital77 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dreaded, seems like the spammer(s) are back; if you follow the history of the Pena page, you can see the strategy of taking out sources first and then deleting the content because it has no sources. Can 68.168.113.202 and Onital77 just be locked out of the article? It will be difficult to constantly follow those edits!?--Esinclair52 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Esinclair52 has made more than 10 reversions within 24 hours which looks like edit war behavior. Please check to see if these edits are not violoating NPOV policy. Pena has already been cleared of the India case yet he removes the most updated citations.Onital77 (talk)

Talk:Main Page

Sorry 'bout that. For some reason Twinkle frequently craps out on me when trying to revert Talk:Main Page, and in the mean time it's apparently rotted my manual reversion skills. No offense was meant on my part, though I'm sure you know that already. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, none taken. Keep up the good work. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)