Wikipedia

User talk:JzG/Archive 52

< User talk:JzG
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Huckleberry113 in topic Huckleberry113's page deletion
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

Long term spam problem

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a user who is fretting and fuming and fighting against consensus over on this page, but my specific concern here is whether something can be done about a personal web site spammed to several pages by that user under various accounts and using different mirrors. I have brought this up here, here, and here already. Given the tenacity and aggression of this user, it seems likely that additional pressure will be required to get all the spam links removed. Any involvement or advice will be appreciated. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove the links, if the user fights to reinsert them then report to the spam blacklist - users who edit-war to include links to their own sites tend to find them blacklisted. The law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Doooh!

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You inadvertently set off a Google Bomb[1] when you deleted I Can Read!. I've recreated it at I Can Read and am reconstructing it with neutral text and hopefully references. The series is notable here in the US. Every kid has dozens of books in the series. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know what you mnean by a Google bomb but I do know that a copy-paste of a laudatory review was not a valid article. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Lauditory pages can be deleted, but in this very rare case it is better to rewrite. Go ahead and Google "I can read Wikipedia". The result is ugly. There's no way you could have known this in advance. You did nothing wrong, but I want to make sure you see why I recreated the page. Jehochman Talk 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So the first hit for "I can read Wikipedia" is Nigger. Should I really care? I mean, honestly? This looks like a case of manufactured outrage to me. No disrespect ro anything but constructing or finding searches to give odd and "offensive" (if you're determined to be offended by a neutral definition of a term) results is not really something that winds me up overmuch. Now, if you typed "nigger" and the first hit was Barack Obama I would consider that a more pressing problem... Guy (Help!) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It sort of became an internet meme over the last week, and it's sad that some idiots think this is jolly fun, and that Google are so easily fooled. Whatever the case may be, don't get pissed at me for recreating the page. :-) Jehochman Talk 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
They are this: arseholes. All internet memes are crap, except More Cowbell, and that's not really an internet meme. Oh, and badgerbadgerbadger. The chances of me getting angry with you for anything are pretty remote, I have no doubt at all of your commitment to Wikipedia - I hope you know that by now. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The return of GoRight?

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

A few months ago, you commented on the indefinite blocking of User:GoRight following this AN/I discussion. A newly created account, User:TheNeutralityDoctor, has been reported to WP:SPI as a possible sockpuppet of GoRight, based on behavioural evidence. Your views would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi JzG. I'm uncertain what your intention was when you left this template at the user's talk page. The user is not and has never been blocked - by you or anyone else. Maybe you were trying to leave a softer template like {{uw-username}} or it was a Twinkle malfunction? Blocking that user for his/her username would seem to be a rather incorrect decision - Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) and Neutrality (talk · contribs) have similar names and are both editors in good standing. Blocking this user as a reincarnation of a a banned user is a separate issue and, as I have stated on the RFCU page, I believe that he is one in the same with the banned user. --B (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an intermittent fault on my ADSL line at the moment, I suspect that was the cause. The intent was to block, which I have now done. On the other hand I may have screwed up. It's a funny old world. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Was your intention to block for username, sockpuppetry, or some other reason? Your block itself did not contain a reason and it was done with autoblock on and account creation blocked, which is not normally done if it was only a user name block. --B (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Mate, I can't remember. I think my brain is shot at the moment, I received a concussion last Friday and I suspect the effects were worse than I had accounted for. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok ... I hope you feel better. PLEASE see a doctor if you have not already done so. A concussion is nothing to mess around with. --B (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, have done, thanks. I'm mostly OK but I simply can't remember this one at all. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gyula Germanus

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I ran across this page today as it was listed in the Large and Unwikified New Articles category. I tagged it as an A7 but another editor removed the tag saying, "remove speedy, includes credible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability". I've never heard anyone mention a claim of significance guideline for inclusion so I'm rather confused. Rather than get into any sort of edit war, would you mind taking a look at the article? If there are inclusion guidelines that I'm unaware of, I'd love to be schooled on them as well. Thanks. OlYellerTalktome 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Patience

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Guy, I hope you are feeling better now. I am being patient about your reply since long. If its your illness, then its ok. Otherwise, please let me have the deleted text of Death and Adjustment Hypotheses; I told you, I lost it with my computer. There are kind editors at wiki who might help me understand how to rewrite a good article from it on such a topic. If you don't have it or any link to it and if I am a stupid not to understand that, please simply write. I understand written docs. And I am not willing to understand any unofficial attitude through this silence. Therefore, if you do not respond I shall take it as "you simply don't care about writing or rewriting this article at wiki and you don't care what I do about it and in that case even if I rewrite it at wiki you won't have any objection, simply what happens in extreme disregards!!". I am telling this simply because you are the last person to delete it. Therefore, answering or not answering will be meaningful for me this time. Best of luck!Shoovrow (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I have nothing to add to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death and Adjustment Hypotheses (2nd nomination). I don't know why you keep trying to create this article, it seems to me that it's a topic of no provable significance. Silence should be interpreted as not giving much of a damn, though it's also easy to miss a particular comment if two or more people leave unrelated comments between login sessions. I think your best bet is to drop it or take it to a more appropriate project, for which purpose I will provide the text if needed. I think it's pretty clear after two Delete AfDs (in both of which you were, I think, the only significant voice for retention) and three deletions that it does not belong on Wikipedia. One is left speculating if you have some vested interest in this topic; your advocacy has passed beyond normal enthusiasm. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for responding. I know Wikipedia is not a property that I inherited from my family and the same is true for you. Our motivations lead us towards what we choose, sometimes its tough to understand from a distance. I want to proceed in a positive way and for that I need to learn. If that learning produce something feasible, only then I can work. You are more experienced than I am and thats why I was shouting for help, especially as you are the last deleter. My query is, even after being completely different from the second version (the copy that was deleted in the second approach) in body and reference that also fulfills the first and second deletion demands, why was it deleted for the 3rd time. Is it a rule to delete any corrected article if it was deleted twice before? I told the second deleter when I recreated the corrected version. It was my failure that I could not make it properly twice. The only bad thing in the 3rd version was the same name, but I can't change that. You are a British man and you know when Royal College of Psychiatrists highlight something twice in their newsletter. So your claim about significance goes against the Royal College at London's quality. Will you pls tell me more simply what do you mean by "take it to a more appropriate project"? If your intentions are good, you will understand me and just might help me to understand. Thank you again for replying.Shoovrow (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point. This article has been deleted several times, twice via AfD, each time you are its sole defender, each time it's concluded by everyone but you that it does not meet inclusion criteria. Sometimes when a lot of people tell you you're wrong, it's because you're wrong. Just drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


OMG

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Guy,

I reported a particular user for having a similar username to your former signature earlier today, here, and that led me to take a brief look at your talk page. I noticed the ArbCom verdict on Geogre, and I just wanted to say that I understand your sadness because seeing that has kind of made me sad too. -- roleplayer 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I both love and respect Geogre in equal measure. By the way if you're wondering who the heck I am I'll email you and let you know (if you have it enabled). Though the entire community may already be conscious of that already... -- roleplayer 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't even curious until you asked :-) Go on then. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just sent it to you now. -- roleplayer 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Got it and replied. Nice to see you again :-) Guy (Help!) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
;-) -- roleplayer 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I've little Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry T. Pretlow II will need courtesy blanking following completion, this way will probably save the inevitable email from them asking for it done which you generally seem to handle for this particular person. 2 lines of K303 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  • My sentiments exactly, I wonder if I can get press coverage by being a "very atheist candidate for the position of Bishop of Durham"? The speedy deletion has certainly saved time, although I wasn't posting for that reason. I was thinking more about this which you dealt with and also OTRS Ticket#2009083110046201 which was dealt with by other people, so if you want to spare the overworked OTRS another job you could courtesy blank the AFD before they email..... 2 lines of K303 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And add Profound Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For future reference:

I've not checked the content of these tickets but they seem to be pretty generic of the class. I can't see 2009083110046201 so it's probably in the Legal queue or something. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A few SPAs as well:

Guy (Help!) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's more accounts than that:
Plus these additional articles:
Neither of those should be assumed to be a fully comprehensive list either, those are just the ones I can find easily (you might be able to find more accounts looking in the deleted histories of the articles listed, and more articles in the deleted contribs of the accounts). If the "for future reference" above is in anticipation of a community ban or similar for persistent vanity spamming and sockpuppetry (some of the SPAs listed were indef blocked back in 2007 so it's definitely abusive), I'd say it's long past time. Taking just the articles about Larry "LaPret" Pretlow (aka The Platinum Kid) I now see 20 deletions if you include the articles for creation that was reversed at LaPret (rapper), and I'd expect that to be a lot higher were it not for many of the titles being salted. Obviously that total doesn't include the considerable number of deletions of articles about his bands, records, other organisations etc....
I'd also be tempted to take a close look at the edits of Dc archivist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From what I remember of the latest incarnation of the article he turned up at an article that had never been posted at that location before approximately 15 hours after it was created and 4 hours after it was nominated for deletion despite not having edited for the previous 6 months, that is definitely suggestive of sock or meatpuppetry. There's also the fact he previously created Larry Pretlow II, created Associated Society of Youth Engaged in Politics (another Larry Prelow "organisation"), created John Capozzi then added a coatrack section, and also created Rasi Caprice with another coatrack section. There's also the small matter of Dc archivist's uploads on Commons. Admittedly they have made some non-Profound Intent related edits, but there's definitely something fishy going on. Assuming there is going to be some movement on all this, I'd hope a topic ban on articles relating to Larry Pretlow, broadly construed, would be in order for him.... 2 lines of K303 12:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Patriot vandalism and your comment 4 years ago.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Four years ago you wrote to User talk:Mdis: "If you continue to make tendentious edits to this article you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

That user is back white washing Patriot Bible University removing sources, edit warring and adding promotional material. (Mdis made four reverts just today. Here's one.)

It seems to be a common idea to block that user permanently. What do you think? May56candoit (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your advice

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to ask for your thoughts on something, and I promise, whatever your answer, I will do my best to consider it carefully. As I said, I like you. I don't care for everything you've said about me, but I'm sure you don't care for everything I've said about you. Whilst I still feel that your original block of me was uncalled for, I would no longer use the term "unjust". I realise that you felt it was just, and I'm at the point where I assume good faith with you. This stress of this wiki drama has spilled over into my actual life. Not so much becuase of any hassles, but because I'm really nothing like the asshole that I've been portrayed to be here. IRL I am well liked, I have many friends and few enemies, and honestly, I'm a nice guy. I've been rereading Reflections, by Marcus Aurelius, which I have found helpful in the past. I do realise that I haven't been exactly following Marcus' admonitions, and I am striving to use them to improve myself, as well as my image here. Beyond My Ken; a user I respect, made the comment, that "I refuse to take responsibility for anything, and feel everything is someone else's fault". Upon reflection, he has a point, although I certainly don't truly feel this way. If I have come across that way-actually I'm sure I have-it is likely due, in no small part, to the fact that I have been made to feel that others feel everything is my fault. Now, I certainly stand by everything I've said about the person who filed the RfC; his lies, and his motives. I realise that I have let my frustration with the actions of one user cloud my judgement about certain others. I intend to issue a number of qualified apologies. I did, however, wish to provide just one example, and see what you think. I'm speaking of the issue with Montanabw, which spilled into an issue with Lar, which... This user, at the RfC, asked me to apologise for calling her "an asshole". I was genuinely amazed (although MA says it is a fool who is amazed by anything) that this user, after her treatment of me, would request an apology, without offering me one first. I was appalled, and would have certainly apologised, had this user apologised to me. I have reluctantly come to realise, that, it is, in a sense, irrevalant. The fact that this user owes me an apology is no reason for me to refrain from giving one, if one is in order. The fact, that I must begrudgingly admit, is I shouldn't have called her that name. It's not going to be easy to apologise to someone who has wronged me, but it is what I need to do. Again, it does seem like a number of people are of the opinion that everything is my fault, and if a dispute involves me, I am the sole guilty party. So with the understanding that it is my intention to apologise, to her and several others, I would just like your genuine opinion on the dispute. I don't claim to know as much as she, when it comes to horses. However, I have spent my life around racehorses, and have a financial interest in several of them. I am not exactly clueless. The Thoroughbred/thoroughbred issue is not as nearly as open and closed as she made it. However, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that she was entirely correct, and I was entirely wrong. I made good faith edits to the article, and left an edit summary. She reverted me, and gave her explanation. I disagreed, so I reverted her. It was at this point, that she threatened to report me for "vandalism". I have never vandalised Wikipedia, and quite naturally, was offended. Furthermore, I left an edit summary, and discussed the edits on three different talk pages. So, no matter how vehemently she disagreed, they were clearly good faith edits, and the vandalism threat was out of line. I reverted again, whilst announcing that I would be citing sources to support my claim. I quickly realised, that as I didn't have any of those sources handy at the moment, there was little point in my reverting until I did. So I then self-reverted, with the edit summary self-revert to avoid edit war. That is what made what this user did next so egregiously offensive. Her next move, was to put a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on my talk page. Now, I realise, that WP:DTTR is not official policy. Nonetheless, I think that any reasonable person would agree that it was in poor taste. Suggesting that a user with several thousand edits "see the help page to learn more about editing", can not logically be taken as anything other than offensive. But worse, after my self-revert, mind you, she filed a report against me at 3RR. The report was quickly dismissed, with the revewing admin stating, "Nothing approaching 3RR". This was, of course, true. Had I not self-reverted, that would have been 2, and it still would have been a false report. But the fact is, that she filed that report after my self-revert, and accompanying edit summary, which is nothing short of blockable. Whilst it was certainly never my desire that she be blocked, the fact that no one called her on that still bothers me. Then, I had Lar come to my talk page, and admonish me for "making excuses", saying "didn't work for my kids, and it's not going to work for you either". I was quite offended that he would speak to me in that condescending tone, and even more offended, that he would compare his authority over me on Wikipedia, as an admin, to the authority he wielded over his children as a parent. He then said the most offencive thing that has been said to me here, before, or since: "This is about your behavior; no one else's". And yes, I intend to begrudgingly apologise to Lar, in spite of that, for the inappropriate comments I made to, and about him. But the fact that he would come to my talk page, and totally excuse every unacceptable thing that Montana did, whilst making his comments to me, was just deplorable. I'm sorry to have carried on for this long, and I certainly appreciate your taking the time to read this. In summary, I've been contemplating this situation, and intend to do what I feel is right. I intend to apologise to Monatana, Lar, and a few others, whether or not they choose to apologise to me. But, getting back to what I said in the beginning of this excruciatingly long post, I respect you, and I'd just like your opinion. With the acknoweledgement that my behaviour was far from exemplary, would you agree with me that Montanabw did not conduct herself appropriately in handling this matter? Again, thank you for your time, as well as your concern for me, and your endevours to help. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are a nice guy with good intentions. You are boxed into a place from which it is hard to recover. One of the most important things to realise about Wikipedia is that it's a text-only medium and it lacks most of the side-channels we get in verbal communication. When someone leaves a message about something, it is quite likely they are having three or four conversations more or less simultaneously and they don't know you the person at all. That can result in what is essentially a drive-by message being blown out of all proportion. The most useful word in Wikipedia is "feh" or maybe "meh". Look for the message behind any communication: is someone actually trying to help steer you the right way, or are they just picking a fight? With admins it is almost always the former. We also look for common behaviour trends. Increasingly trenchant language, reversions and so on are marks of an edit war. WP:3RR is a limit not an entitlement, the rule actually is "don't edit-war". WP:BRD is the much more important policy, with the emphasis on "D". These are just a couple of quick thoughts as I'm not on top form right now but I hope you'll be able to understand the meaning behind them. You asked for advice, I will give it when I've had time to consider, but for now those are my first thoughts. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My thanks.Mk5384 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Guy, I'd like to drop my request that you look into this incident. I have had a fairly nice conversation with Montana, and I don't see any point in exploring this further. Thank you again for your time, and comments. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'm glad you've sorted it out. WP:AGF is a good guideline, if you actively look for the good in someone then you often find it. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Brian Houston (pastor) and Bobbie Houston.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I came across your deletion of these articles while going through the unblock list messages. While creation of multiple accounts for promotional purposes is obviously unacceptable, so is the speedy deletion of two articles that have been around for a considerable period of time with multiple editors, and most importantly quite clearly don't meet CSD A7. Please restore these articles (then take them to AfD if you must, though I doubt they would be deleted there either). Peter 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Except that they do: there was no assertion of notability. The entire Hollsong walled garden needs investigating, in fact, as there are several articles whose notability is asserted only in terms of each other. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you're well aware that CSD A7 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". You obviously disagree, but I believe that the opening paragraphs 'indicates importance'. So I'm asking again, please restore the articles, or I will take them to DRV. Peter 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sings in a church is not an indication why the subject is significant or important. I have no doubt you will go to DRV, every single article on any Christian act who ever sung a note is asserted to be of supreme importance, but these self-sourced articles on people whose significance was not asserted are, in my view, proper candidates for the bitbucket. {{Hillsong}} is a placeholder for a massive walled garden of self-referential articles with assertions of notability by inheritance and by reference to each other. It needs pruning. Massively. Incidentally, as far as I can tell this is close to generic for every Pentecostal or Southern Fundie church. They all have their own presses and record labels and assert (on Wikipedia) the significance of their people by reference to how many books they've had published by their own press or how many records they've made with teir record label. Where I grew up the local church was St. Albans Cathedral, the pastor was Robert Runcie, we had Eric James on staff, the music was run by Stephen Darlington, successor to Peter Hurford and followed by Barry Rose. The common thread here is that these folks all have notability that spreads well beyond this one church. There was, like the big Pentecostal churches, a huge team of dedicated people working behind the scenes, many of whom were accorded public honours (OBE, CBE and so on) for their work, but were not shouted from the rooftops and definitely did not have the church's PR setting up florid Wikipedia articles on them. I find the vainglorious nature of these places highly distasteful. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, user is replacing the content, as I am unable to see the OTRS reports it is hard for me to get the full picture. Please comment or give some guidance at the thread at the BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, your username was also added to the article, now removed in this edit I have told him not to do that again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bucks Boys Productions

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there. I think you made a mistake when deleting Bucks Boys Productions. Not only because I previously declined to delete it but in the version when it was deleted it was not only promoting or advertising something. Please restore the article or allow me to do so. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is at least its fourth recreation. I think it may have been created/passed onto by another editor as well. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Neither the previous deletions nor the creator's identity warrant deletion. G11 requires that the articles serves no other purpose than advertising and this article, while partially spammy, does not satisfy this requirement. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Reasonable people can differ. My interpretation: partially spammy (even at the fourth attempt!) plus SPA plus serial re-creation equals promotional article. I do not like spammers. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:WindarProd/Appeal discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Guy, I've received some appeals related to a block you performed against Dtimberlake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Bhambel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Your input on the above-linked page would be appreciated. Thanks, --Chris (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I thought you'd be interested in the proposed change to the John Major Jenkins page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Huckleberry113's page deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. I have been editing, creating and improving pages about Scotch whisky (one of my great loves). I was saddened when you removed a page I wrote about the Independent Bottler Master of Malt. Not only had I invested a lot of time in creating it, there was nothing contentious about it! There was no direct advertising and promotion, everything had references, and everything was notable.

If you feel there is any promotion on it (which was not intentional; I'm an accountant, not a whisky professional and I certainly don't even have any affiliation with any whisky company) then I'd be happy to alter it. Like I said, this was not promotion. I have edited and created other Independent Bottler pages too, yet they have not been taken down.

Far fairer would it have been, had you edited the page to your satisfaction, rather than delete something that you did not think was noteworthy. I appreciate you are trying to maintain the usefulness and accuracy of Wikipedia, but simply deleting something full stop is not in keeping with the fair, broad, open-mindedness of the site. I urge you to let me know how to improve a page and then reinstate (one of the first I've made in such detail - and one that took a lot of time to learn about wiki markup).

I'm trying to work my way through the Independent Bottlers on this page, and will add more as well.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huckleberry113 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_52&oldid=1144434373"