Hello, if you have any comments or questions for me; please put them here. Cgettings ( talk) 03:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that: a) the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee article had been around for some time and b) the AfD discussion was not exactly a resounding "delete". But we had better do it by the rules. I have e-mailed you the old version and yours. Please feel free to: re-instate the article at User:Cgettings/sandbox ( Cgettings:USERNAME/GATA was not a valid user space title), spell "committee" correctly, fix those horrible naked URLs, make sure the links establish notability and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed the history and talk page and found that some users were replacing sourced content with unverified content. Could you explain the content that is being disputed? An admin has protected the page, so edits by IP address aren't allowed anymore. Regarding your edits, you're doing the right thing by providing verified content and starting a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. I'll see what I can do to cleanup the article. Thanks. Netalarm 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the information about Delta being taken over by UFG, this is a fact. Cloherty was removed by Delta's board of directors at the request of the limited partners. This fact is referred to in the article by Private Equity International and is commonly known in the Russian business community. I will provide additional information on this topic for the biography since Wikipedia should provide the most up to date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.106.236.131 ( talk) 09:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cgettings, I'll respond to your questions here, rather than the article talk page, since I'm going to be long-winded, and I'll talk about some Wikipedia policies. The GATA article was deleted three times before I took a run at rewriting it. The first deletion was not given due process in my opinion. The second two attempts were badly done, and should have been deleted. Because of that history, I saw that the article would need bulletproof reliable sources (see WP:RS) or it would be deleted again.
An article about a controversial organization will typically be more subject to edit-warring, game-playing, and Wikilawyering. For that reason, you'll be greatly helped by closely studying the Wikipedia editing policies I mention. Some of the content and references in your sandbox version will be a great addition to the article. Some of them run afoul of various policies that may not be a problem on many articles, but wouldn't stand up under close scrutiny.
This is just my opinion on the content in your sandbox, and the references.
Keep in mind that these are just my opinions, and that I'm giving you the highest standards so that any additions will remain. Other editors may give you other advice. Like yourself, I'm not involved in any way with, or against, GATA. I just wanted to see an article about an interesting and notable group here. I'll keep an eye on the article as you edit, and please feel free to ask me any questions. Priyanath talk 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I'm still assuming that the editor is attempting to improve the article, as Wikipedia's assume good faith policy suggests. However, I'm not quite sure that this editor is understanding some key policies and how he or she is violating them. There have been multiple attempts by other people to notify this editor about his or her disruptive actions (including 2 unsourced content warnings), but the user does not seem to take the suggestions into consideration.
If this user continues to ignore the warnings and continues to add unverified content, they would constitute as vandalism. My hope is that he takes part in the discussion and we can all work towards a solution to this dispute. After all, these is only one version of the truth, so there really shouldn't be factual disputes taking place. Special:Contributions/Happy225 may be of interest to you. Happy225 has never edited any other article on Wikipedia, and has never really discussed his edits. The account was created on 07:01, February 11, 2009, and his first edit was done at 07:11 to Patricia Cloherty. It seems quite obvious that he only created an account to modify the page.
So at this point, let's hope he responds. But if he doesn't, he could be blocked for engaging in edit wars (and/or vandalism by adding uncited content). His edits do constitute as vandalism. Remember, the 3RR does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks! Netalarm 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if you have any comments or questions for me; please put them here. Cgettings ( talk) 03:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that: a) the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee article had been around for some time and b) the AfD discussion was not exactly a resounding "delete". But we had better do it by the rules. I have e-mailed you the old version and yours. Please feel free to: re-instate the article at User:Cgettings/sandbox ( Cgettings:USERNAME/GATA was not a valid user space title), spell "committee" correctly, fix those horrible naked URLs, make sure the links establish notability and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed the history and talk page and found that some users were replacing sourced content with unverified content. Could you explain the content that is being disputed? An admin has protected the page, so edits by IP address aren't allowed anymore. Regarding your edits, you're doing the right thing by providing verified content and starting a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. I'll see what I can do to cleanup the article. Thanks. Netalarm 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the information about Delta being taken over by UFG, this is a fact. Cloherty was removed by Delta's board of directors at the request of the limited partners. This fact is referred to in the article by Private Equity International and is commonly known in the Russian business community. I will provide additional information on this topic for the biography since Wikipedia should provide the most up to date information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.106.236.131 ( talk) 09:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cgettings, I'll respond to your questions here, rather than the article talk page, since I'm going to be long-winded, and I'll talk about some Wikipedia policies. The GATA article was deleted three times before I took a run at rewriting it. The first deletion was not given due process in my opinion. The second two attempts were badly done, and should have been deleted. Because of that history, I saw that the article would need bulletproof reliable sources (see WP:RS) or it would be deleted again.
An article about a controversial organization will typically be more subject to edit-warring, game-playing, and Wikilawyering. For that reason, you'll be greatly helped by closely studying the Wikipedia editing policies I mention. Some of the content and references in your sandbox version will be a great addition to the article. Some of them run afoul of various policies that may not be a problem on many articles, but wouldn't stand up under close scrutiny.
This is just my opinion on the content in your sandbox, and the references.
Keep in mind that these are just my opinions, and that I'm giving you the highest standards so that any additions will remain. Other editors may give you other advice. Like yourself, I'm not involved in any way with, or against, GATA. I just wanted to see an article about an interesting and notable group here. I'll keep an eye on the article as you edit, and please feel free to ask me any questions. Priyanath talk 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I'm still assuming that the editor is attempting to improve the article, as Wikipedia's assume good faith policy suggests. However, I'm not quite sure that this editor is understanding some key policies and how he or she is violating them. There have been multiple attempts by other people to notify this editor about his or her disruptive actions (including 2 unsourced content warnings), but the user does not seem to take the suggestions into consideration.
If this user continues to ignore the warnings and continues to add unverified content, they would constitute as vandalism. My hope is that he takes part in the discussion and we can all work towards a solution to this dispute. After all, these is only one version of the truth, so there really shouldn't be factual disputes taking place. Special:Contributions/Happy225 may be of interest to you. Happy225 has never edited any other article on Wikipedia, and has never really discussed his edits. The account was created on 07:01, February 11, 2009, and his first edit was done at 07:11 to Patricia Cloherty. It seems quite obvious that he only created an account to modify the page.
So at this point, let's hope he responds. But if he doesn't, he could be blocked for engaging in edit wars (and/or vandalism by adding uncited content). His edits do constitute as vandalism. Remember, the 3RR does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks! Netalarm 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)