Jasong27

Scott Atkins

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Scott Atkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Scott Atkins. Gromlakh (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Confidence trick, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gromlakh (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Confidence trick

The article Scott Atkins is a hoax, and you know it. Adding a link to it and a description of the fake person is introducing deliberate factual errors, which is considered vandalism. So don't do it again. Gromlakh (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

First off, if you wish to communicate with me, do so on my talk page. I do not generally respond to emails, and it's preferable to keep the communications here for a complete record of what's happened.

I am not bullying you; you put up an article containing no references that verified that the subject was real and there are no results in Google for "Scott Atkins" + any company names or other unique terms in the article. The only conclusion was that the person doesn't exist, since his existence could not be verified. You've finally provided one source that mentions the name of Scott Atkins, so that may at least prove that the article is not a hoax. For that reason, I'm going to remove the prod tag.

Instead, I'm going to send it to AfD for more eyes to look at it. Based on what you've shown, I highly doubt the subject of the article is notable enough for an article. Furthermore, the entire article is original research. You've provided some sources, but you're drawing a significant number of conclusions that are not supported by the sources. It's essentially just you doing your own reporting on Scott Atkins, which is not allowed. This quote from the email you sent me sums up the original research problem perfectly:

Scott Atkins has stole over $20M in the last 14 months, from advance fee fraud, making him one of the most successful that remain on US soil. Now, I don't have third party sources to substantiate it, but I have physical evidence that I am taking to the newspapers.

If you can't cite to reliable, third-party sources to substantiate your claims, the article will come down. Furthermore, without such sources, it appears to be an attack page. It also violates Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons. Making accusations without proof (which is essentially what you've done at this point) can get you (and possibly the Wikimedia Foundation) sued for libel. Gromlakh (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott Atkins

I have nominated Scott Atkins, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Atkins (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Gromlakh (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Glacier capital fund

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Glacier

The subject is not a personal attack, Glacier Capital Group refers to an organization. I noted that there was originally an article posted about glacier several days go, which referred to Glacier as a legitimate company with $300M in assets. The article was removed as "advertising". I did a simple check and confirmed that it was not in fact advertising, but fraud. Had they said "the best", or some other qualitative praise, then it would strictly qualify as adverstising. But the original poster made a statement of fact. The statement, through verifiable sources, turns about to be false, and knowingly false. Also, the organization has ties to a ring of fraud that has recently come to light. There is no attack or tone; at least not intentionally. How would you recommend that article be adjusted to reflect the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasong27 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article started off by calling an individual a "con man" without a source. Basically it takes a conviction to be legally clear to call someone a con man (and even then, one would be playing with fire). But that is academic; the article was deleted by an admin for being about a company that is not notable. When you make accusations claims about a person, you absolutely must back them up with references to reliable (published) sources - every claim must be verifiable. There is no wiggle room whatsoever on this. Dethme0w (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sfa.pdf

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sfa.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)