User talk:GreenMeansGo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:39, 26 March 2018

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A cheeseburger for you!

For your quick-fire and accurate CSD tagging in the post ACTRIAL apocalypse, I say "nice shootin', Tex!" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I did miss one that ended up being a well covered publicly traded company. But in my defense, it looked like this at the time. Also good on Mar11 for catching it. GMG ^talk 18:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. My standard triage news search gives up wall to wall press releases :-/ It's only when I get onto page 2 that I find actual usable sources. Yeah, good catch by Mar11 i think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by temperature

This article is too long, so we divided it into continents

Category:Lists of cities by temperature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijh (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kristijh I added the related articles to the AfD. The problem, at least in my opinion, is that they're all indiscriminate collections of unexplained statistics. The content is relevant at that depth in the individual articles about each city. And it makes sense to make these kinds of lists when they're directly comparing a central feature of the subject (like List of cities by population density or List of cities by GDP), but these are a pretty excessive level of depth for a characteristic (monthly average high and low temperatures) that isn't necessarily a central feature of the study of cities. GMG ^talk 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Scott Wing page

You said that I wrote a page about myself, although I simply take the name of Wing to write about him– consider me a ghost-writer.

Also, stop deleting my stuff.

EDIT: *Please* stop deleting my stuff.

Scottwing (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please stop making inappropriate pages. Continuing to do so will likely result in the loss of editing privileges. GMG ^talk 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not aware I edited/removed any comments

if I did, it was certainly inadvertent, I would never knowingly do it

cheers

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_McCabe&diff=831293575&oldid=831286335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Soibangla. I would assume you had an edit conflict, which causes it to happen sometimes. Also I don't understand how computers work, and editing Wikipedia is pretty much the most technically advanced thing I know how to do, so it could have just been magic for all I know. GMG ^talk 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a great (and fun) explanation of how computers work. (If you find yourself going to bed at 3am because you have spent the previous 7 hours watching the entire backlog of Numberphile videos .... you have my sympathy) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you like that kind of stuff, you should check out this channel which I have personally watched entirely too much of. GMG ^talk 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Talk:Scott_H._Stalker

Hi there. I have mentioned possible copyvio and non-notability on the talk page of "Scott H. Stalker". Requesting your response as you are extensively editing said article. Thanks.DesertPipeline (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Ocient

Hello GreenMeansGo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ocient, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being co-founded by the founder of Cleversafe indicates some significance . Thank you. So Why 16:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't win 'em all. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm on board with a notable founder ... but Chris Gladwin appears to be about a cricketer. Not... totally sure I agree that two degrees of separation from a notable topic is significant, since that would include a massive amount of subjects, and doesn't make for a plausible redirect. Coverage for this Gladwin is pretty slanted toward local Chicago coverage (although there are some things like this out there). Meh. GMG ^talk 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. I guess it does have a crunchbase citation thrown in there. GMG ^talk 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Crunchbase is usually enough to clear A7, though possibly not anything else. Oh, and if Kim Kardashian's article read "Kim Kardashian is a [derogatory word about a promiscuous woman] who's [obscene term for sexual activity] and stuck it online for the rest of the world to [nasty ephiphet]" then I'd probably PROD that with the same rationale - the "not a good idea" refers to it being a potential BLP-violating train crash. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Notable founder does not necessarily mean founder with an article, does it? Creating a company and selling it for $1.3b to IBM seems a more noteworthy feat than playing four matches for some cricket team. Let me see if I can't cobble together an article for this Gladwin, then we have a nice merge target :-) Regards So Why 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't do sports. For the other Gladwin, it could go either way really. That Forbes article was probably the best I found. It's borderline whether founding a second non-notable (at least IMO at this moment) company rises to the level of independent notability above and beyond his first company. The other two founders appear to be patently non-notable without a chance. GMG ^talk 17:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to wish to rain on your parade anymore, but I declined the speedy on Millar Gough Ink because it's founded by two notable people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Mind you, you won't find much more in RS than directory listings ("'in association with..." stuff), so AfD is probably a killer. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you consult WP:ATD, if a non-notable company is run by a notable person, you redirect to that person. If it's run by two notable people, then there's a bit of a pickle. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you nominate it for deletion and everyone !votes to just delete it outright, it gets deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Alright well, I guess I'm just going much too fast today then. Time to stop and clean up my mess (already have the AfD screen open). Incidentally, the gangster fellow does seem he may be easily notable, especially once you know his name in Hindi. Just well outside my circle of competence to write. I was thinking attack page, but pushed A7 out of an abudance of AGF, because yeah, it did look an awful lot like a.. how do you say... "BLP-violating train crash". GMG ^talk 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'll second that and add to the above notes that you might consider waiting a bit before hitting pages with speedy/afd tags: all three of the pages above you tagged for deletion less than five minutes after creation, which can be taken as overly BITEy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one, as I said, I was very much thinking attack page, so the courtesy blanking was a thing on my mind. For the other two, yes you are probably correct. GMG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out you were bang on about Sarah Frey, sources all over the place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. I just wasn't in much of a mood for Oh, you uploaded/added a ton of advertorial copyrighted content? Here, let me write you an article. Sometimes it depends on what day you catch me on how generous I'm feeling for spammers. Today I caught Scott H. Stalker, and... well... WP:NSOLDIER is so heavily slanted in favor of Officers I couldn't resist the opportunity to squeeze in an enlisted man under criteria 3. GMG ^talk 17:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've got (counts on fingers and toes) a half dozen admins here... one of you wanna take care of this copy and paste move re: Adolphe Alphand and Jean-Charles Alphand? (Can I go back to writing articles yet? Does the RfC really have to stay open for 30 days?) GMG ^talk 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very prominent admin told me off-wiki about two days ago that you should "do a Goldenring" and self-nom. Anyway, I think I've done what you asked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we had "very prominent admins". I thought we mostly had janitors.

On a different note, having thought about it for a little while, I guess I'd add in response to Amorymeltzer (and I say this as a person whose very first talk page message on this account was an A7 notification)... yes, it is bitey to nominate an article for CSD a few minutes after creation... but it's still bitey to nominate it 10 or 15 minutes after the fact, and even worse if it means they sign off in the meanwhile and come back to it already having been deleted. That's the exact reason I want to see ACTRIAL reinstated. The system without it is a forced choice between biting and letting very low quality articles sit around in mainspace. It's even worse in the aggregate because in the meanwhile it means we have people like me biting people out of obligation, instead of contributing to places like the Teahouse and AfC, where we can meaningfully help people make better articles and become better editors. IMO that RfC can't be closed quickly enough. GMG ^talk 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. That's definitely an argument in favor — draft process being gentler — and I don't think I saw it mentioned on the RfC yet. Honestly, I think anything within a couple of hours is too bitey; with the exception of G3/10/12, and the like, it's not the end of the world. But then again, that's why I avoid NPP. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could certainly use your help, at least to hold the line for a few weeks, and prevent things from being indexed by Google and copied to a half dozen WP mirrors, with whatever potential BLP and copyright violations they may have, all attributed graciously right back to us in a way we can't change. Just in case you find some free time. GMG ^talk 22:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, that wasn't a sarcastic stab. That was a genuine appeal for help. GMG ^talk 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It said whatever the !vote deserved:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I... may or may not have typed and deleted two alternative comments on the grounds that they were... sarcastic to the point of being uncivil... but you can't prove it. GMG ^talk 13:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. Your commentary has been superb as of late, and it has given me no small enjoyment seeing your name pop up on my watchlist. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone has got a staggering 3145 edits to JW's t/p, that says it all.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true to my word, it's just a stub, but it's still better than trying to argue that right there. GMG ^talk 12:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

Not my fault that other people seems to hate everything that tries to be consistent or helpful or that Wikipedia doesn't have clear enough rules and guidelines. Or that I don't like to let myself get bullied by older edits with their bureaucracy and ganging together with their friends to outvote others. 99% of all edit war arguments are just "oh but I don't feel this" without backing it up with anything beyond that. Every person on this website seems to act like a giant hypocrite when it comes to edit warring. People just want others to give in to their ideas by incessant nagging and if you express your displeasure even a little you're being hostile or uncivil or something. Why is it even allowed that people tag someone else as an edit warner when the person themselves is the one edit warring with the other, huh?★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested, you lost your chance. Go keep the shit where it's already started.[1]
Pathetic hypocrite.[2]
I already did, read the talk page of the article like I said. Also, learn to make a new section and sign like a proper editor or never make a comment on someones talkpage.[3]
I don't know if you're dense or something but I don't care.[4]
Alreay got the stupid ping[5]
Fuck off and die[6]
Why are you choosing to be a hypocrite? You're edit warring just as much. Typical shameless behaviour.[7]
How about learn to read and see that Legion has review for more than one episode? Huh? Are you capable of that? Why are you adding back the incorrect fact there? To big of an ego to admit you were wrong?[8]

You know what I think? I think you need to carefully consider that in replying here, I've already managed to gather about a half dozen diffs all handy like, and you can damned well bet an ANI I open on you isn't going to get sidetracked into my own behavioral problems, because I'm not going around acting like a prick. Kindly stop doing so yourself, and save me the trouble of having to open a thread. GMG ^talk 16:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is an interesting attempt at trying to discuss an issue too. --wooden superman 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fuck off and die^[9] one has already been mentioned on ANI. See here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize. I was around, and that is the thread I was alluding to. GMG ^talk 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (didn't notice) but my point is that this pattern of incivility and edit warring has already been to ANI once, any continuation of the problematic editing behavior should be referred back to ANI regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anyone can open a thread if they like. For my own part, I'm content to call it a final warning and go back to maliciously deleting people's pictures on Commons. GMG ^talk 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes that's always the best idea. I am clearing out the bitcoins myself. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) @Prince of Thieves: Forgive the interruption, but I've been meaing to ask; is yours by any chance a WP:CLEANSTART account...? —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 17:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a WP:CLEANSTART, I have an active account on another project which I have not linked. I can elaborate in vague details and reasoning if you like. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, PoT, I was just wondering to myself a couple of hours ago whether adding crypto-currencies to A7 would get any traction. This didn't used to be a thing, having a half dozen of these a day. Apparently it's a thing now. GMG ^talk 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, most of them can be dealt with as companies anyway. There is a recent discussion vaguely along those lines at Talk:Cryptocurrency, but that was more how to deal with the existing articles. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BusinessBlocks speedy deletion

What are some ways I could improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards and re-submit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchellekm (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mchellekm. The short answer is Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company. The long answer is that you need to carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them, because failure to do so is likely to draw a good deal of unwanted attention. If you like, you can submit an article to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer prior to publishing. But even then I would warn that if what you submit is anything like the article you just wrote, the entire ordeal is likely to be a waste of your time, and you're probably better off trying to promote your company using means besides creating a Wikipedia article. GMG ^talk 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Ibrahim Khalil Naim, GreenMeansGo.

Unfortunately Classicwiki has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

CSD improperly removed by the article creator.

To reply, leave a comment on Classicwiki's talk page.

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Well that's a strange feature. GMG ^talk 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Guess I have to ping. Not sure Classicwiki. exactly what combination of steps you took to make it notify me for this, but I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to. GMG ^talk 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just used the PageCuration tool, it just automatically notifies people that I have unreviewed pages that they have previously reviewed. In this case when you CSD'ed the page in question, it also marked the page as reviewed. If someone else or the creator removed the CSD tag, the page review still stand...which is not ideal. Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Classicwiki. I'm pretty sure standard operating procedure there is just to revert the edit that removed the CSD template, or manually restore it, without needing to adjust the reviewed status of the page. I mean, it don't hurt my feelings any, but it might be super confusing to someone who's new at NPP. GMG ^talk 21:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, will do the next time. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello. Just a little note, the "talk" link in your signature looks a bit weird on your posts here, as the software automatically bolds self-links. Maybe you should change [[User:GreenMeansGo|GMG]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|talk]] to [[User:GreenMeansGo|GMG]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|talk]]. Note the difference between [[User talk:GreenMeansGo]] and [[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top]] that will make the link stay normal. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks L293D. I'm really about the third least tech savvy person on Wikipedia. Even my current signature was designed by someone on IRC because I couldn't get the markup to fit in the character limit. Anyway, much appreciated. GMG ^talk 21:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

A hint to help you continue to do your good work more effectively: when there is a promotional article from a company that is also a copyvio of their web site, mark it as both G11 and G12. If it's just marked G12, the wording there can be seen as encouraging them to try to give permission for it, and that's not what we want. It's better to cover all the bases. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. That may be a good point DGG. I do remember there was some point at which curator just said on their talk page "I nominated your article for multiple reasons", or something to that effect without specifying, but I can't remember off the top of my head whether it was two or three reasons. (This hasn't been a thing for six months and I've been happily mostly writing.) I guess my focus has mostly been on just getting rid of obviously inappropriate spam, with the expectation that they won't have a whole lot of sticking power as an editor, which ACTRIAL has fairly well established (and honestly, although we don't want to leave a bad impression, if their primary goal here is for promotion, we really don't want them here unless they decide to come back later for altruistic rather than promotional reasons). But at any rate, at least until the RfC is closed, I'll definitely keep it in mind. Thanks for the note. GMG ^talk 23:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as for sticking power, at AfC. there are some who keep resubmitting indefinitely, and the only way of removing the drafts is MfD. I think we will have to deal with this sooner of later by a speedy criterion, but the first step is getting the RfC accepted. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

We will. The proposals I've seen so far have been fairly lacking in nuance, to the point where I've mostly watched and not participated in the discussions. I don't know what the solution is, but it's easier to spot a bad proposal than it is to come up with a good one. GMG ^talk 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have to ask the tough questions

File:Marlon Brando (cropped).jpg

What, bunnies with my name...

Prince of Thieves

Marlon Bundo's: A Day in the Life of the Vice President has an article, and A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo has an article... but does Marlon Bundo deserve to be an article itself instead of a DAB? I mean... per GNG a book-length history of [Marlon Bundo] .. is plainly non-trivial coverage of [Marlon Bundo]. GMG ^talk 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, why does WP:DAB make a special exception for Wiktionary links, when people are obviously missing out on c:Category:Marlon Bundo? GMG ^talk 14:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. This is real. This is happening. Gimme about ten or fifteen minutes. GMG ^talk 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at United States presidential pets#See also as well. :) Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, I consider this to be your fault. I haven't nominated a DYK in over a year. GMG ^talk 16:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly GMG, if I painted myself purple and danced stark bollock naked in the street, would you do that too? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a second time for everything (I was in college for a long time.) GMG ^talk 16:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is, if BOTUS posts a picture to his official instagram, does that count as a federal government work for the purpose of copyright? GMG ^talk 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I almost called you "so cruel" for not including the photo in your DYK nom. wumbolo ^^^ 15:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, go for it Wumbolo. I haven't done a DYK in forever. GMG ^talk 16:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise a photo is included in the books nom? wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. No. I just write. I normally don't get involved in the mainpage things. GMG ^talk 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eugenio Pozzi

Hello, I created this page because is the biography of a person of particular influence in the city of Milan. In particular in the development of an actual project. This individual was also I gave to the page few reference (available only in Italian). This person was also one of the two major candidates chosen by the winning coalition of the 2001 iitalian general election to the position of Minister of transport in Italy. He is a well know person and very active in the city life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemocaptain111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nemocaptain111. I only nominated it under WP:BLPPROD, because all articles on living persons have to have at least one citation to a reliable source to back them up. That no longer applies and has been removed. Someone else started the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Pozzi. There, you should present published sources that demonstrate the subject meets our standards for notability. GMG ^talk 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Rashad Coulter, GreenMeansGo.

Unfortunately CASSIOPEIA has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

not a single source - move back to draft page

To reply, leave a comment on CASSIOPEIA's talk page.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Took me waaaay too long to figure out why I didn't nominate that for BLPPROD. GMG ^talk 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Marlon Bundo at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for someone who only nominates anything for anything once in a blue moon, it would be really handy if OTD, GA, FA, and DYK had... any type of continuity in process whatsoever. GMG ^talk 14:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Tetrault

I have follow the wikipedia's guidelines for content as well as references. Requesting you to go through the content once(with references). Sampra88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sampra88. Well, the only two sections that actually have any prose in them are almost entirely unreferenced, sourced only to essentially a press release on an official website, which even then mentions the subject only in passing. Most of the rest of the article is sourced to Wealth Professional, which by it's own self-description is an online support vehicle for any company looking to market its products to the planning and advice channel or essentially an ad agency acting as a media outlet to drop names and plug products. Most Media section is off topic, and is just instances of him giving his opinion in sources about other topics where he is himself not the main subject of the article. Similarly for the source in the lead, which actually only dedicates about ten words to talking about the subject himself, and is entirely otherwise about investing advice.

Much of what content there is, if it wasn't removed for being unsourced, would need to be removed for just being cringy in a way that is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article: He is an expert in a long list of categories when it comes to financial planning and wealth management. His expertise is evident from the moment he appears or says something on a topic. Must of the rest, if not outright cringy, is promotion through either playing fast and loose with sources ostensibly about other topics, or giving undue weight to tangentially related things, like a hockey tournament. It's difficult to say what is both well sourced, relevant and non-promotional that could be retained if the article was rewritten to be neutral.

Besides that, it looks like there was a discussion only a month ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Tetrault which determined the subject did not meet our notability guidelines, which requires in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, and at least that much seems unlikely to have changed in such a short period of time. GMG ^talk 19:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That feeling...

When you're looking for vandalism...and are immediately met with a perfectly reasonable explanation. GMG ^talk 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

I suggest that you stop policing other people's pages, stop making empty threats, and start being smart. Nick845 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 When you're looking for vandalism...and are immediately met with a [[Hooker Creek|perfectly reasonable explanation]]. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
+== A suggestion ==
+I suggest that you stop policing other people's pages, stop making empty threats, and start being smart. [[User:Nick845|Nick845]] ([[User talk:Nick845|talk]]) 20:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)