User talk:Ian McGrady

Welcome!

Hello, Ian McGrady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Zeta vang"

A page you created, Zeta vang, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a band or other musical group, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for musical groups in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.zetavang.com (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Heavy edit

A tag has been placed on Heavy edit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Truthanado (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits as an IP

Ian,

It is fairly clear you're also editing the article In Masks Outrageous and Austere (as well as the article John Uecker) without logging in. One of the IP's you used has just been blocked for 12 hours for page blanking. In particular, I'm puzzled by the page blanking with an edit summary "deletes article", which implies you knew what you were doing. Could you please (a) remember to log in, and (b) be more careful about blanking pages? Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence also causes me to believe that other IPs, including 74.72.119.125 (talk) and 64.131.191.195 (talk), have also been used to edit. —DoRD (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seem to be a few. Doesn't look like they're being used maliciously; no edit warring with multiple IPs or multiple participation in talk page discussions; I think it might just be not bothering to log in. I've asked him to log in from now on, and he's explained the page blanking on my talk page, so I think all is OK for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.zetavang.com (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC) thank you[reply]

hello 00:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Hi I suggest deleting this page as the issue is obviously over

Speedy deletion nomination of CANHELP

A tag has been placed on CANHELP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. JustBerry (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing in the sense of building an article. It takes time to even see what I've written clearly. I don't know how anyone could possibly write one of these deeply intricate documents without many visits back to the article to improve it.www.zetavang.com (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)www.zetavang.com (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)hello 00:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Larry Dvoskin

The article Larry Dvoskin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added many citations including an online newspaper article.www.zetavang.com (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I've added more references and citations. www.zetavang.com (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I suggest this be deleted at this point because the article has been substantiated hello 00:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Larry Dvoskin at Grammy Awards.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Larry Dvoskin at Grammy Awards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi - thanks - this is a free image provided me by Mr Dvoskin www.zetavang.com (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 9 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Gary Null page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC) fixed it thank you

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

This is also a warning.

You should also be aware of our rules on conflict of interest. Your name matches the family name of a collaborator of Gary Null, and we know that because you yourself created the article on that person, as indeed you created articles on several other Null collaborators. At this point I think it's fair to say that you should not edit any of these articles directly but should restrict yourself to proposing improvements on the Talk page, This especially applies to the article on Null, where your recent edits are a gross violation of out policy on neutrality.

Please note that continued disruptive editing in this area may lead to your being blocked from editing and/or restricted from editing in this area at all. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy:

1) I created the article on my father who was a New York Times bestselling author -- 54 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, and the only 2 brothers to be on the list at the same time. That is culturally and intellectually significant. I don't think I overdid it.

2) What were those several other Null collaborators articles you mention? Please list them. I don't remember.

3) At this point I am unconvinced of your fairness.

4) The Gary Null article stood completely biased for years. Where was Wikipedia's great intellectual force in terms of counter-balancing that article? I have left all controversies in tact, applying more objective tone where necessary, providing footnotes, deleting inaccessible references. I will grant that my inclusion of the list of awards was not rooted in footnotes and other information was also unsubstantiated, but generally I think I show that his work appears warrant further development of the article. I cannot concede that my recent edits are a "gross violation" of NPOV or are "disruptive" except that the prior full wipeout deletion was extremely unfair and blind to otherwise good contributions I made to it.

I understand the nature of the assessment, that my name is the same name and I am related to someone who appeared on his show who died a while ago. I agree that someone in my position may be blinded by biases. I feel my edits have been relatively fair and introduced many of the salient traits that a good WikiPedia article should embody. On the other hand, Wikipeida may find itself in the position of constantly dealing with family/relative/interested parties who may be the initial parties interested in advancing understanding of article subjects.

QUESTION: If there is call for investigation of an article, and there may be apparent bias, how does one call upon other wikipedia editors to review it?

On the other hand, I feel the two editors I have most frequently encountered have swooped down like Valkyries and made many strong accusations without actually having read the contributions or seeing what work has actually been done.

If you feel that I am the person who should *not* be editing the article, then will you? Will you task someone to improve the article? He is genuinely a culturally significant figure, a person of tremendous influence in the health/wellness world, a NYT bestseller, and the founder of an entire niche of online communication.

And moreover, is it that Wikipedia wants completely dispassionate editors who let poorly written and biased articles lie, only to sanction those who are motivated to fix them? I think some deeper thought has to go into your brand of policing. I have read the guidelines, which you thoughtfully provided, and think I'm doing a pretty good job of coloring inside the lines.

hello 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The significance or otherwise of the subject makes no difference, according to our rules you may not create or edit articles on your family or close connections. You especially may not edit these articles in a way which promotes them. You are free to point out errors of fact on the talk pages, but this must be kept specific. That is, a quote form the article which is provably incorrect, a proposed correction, and one or more reliable independent sources that verify both the proposed text and its status as a neutral summary of the matter. Bear in mind that we have specific guidelines of the types of sources that are considered reliable for medical subjects; WP:MEDRS. Sources that do not meet this guidance are unlikely to be accepted.

There are places where you can ask for help, but the best thing is to make well sourced suggestions on the Talk page.

Wikipedia administrators are janitors more than policement. It's not our job to fix badly written content (though we can do so in a personal capacity), it is our job to point out policies and ensure that they are not breached. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Guy -

Doesn't wikipeida say: Ignore all rules[edit] This one is very simple. If a rule would prevent you from improving, or preventing harm to, the encyclopedia, then ignore it. However, be certain that what you are doing would really improve the encyclopedia and is not just something that you want to do. Be prepared to justify your actions to anybody with a reasonable objection.

And I've read the rules which you thoughtfully supplied. Thanks for that. But could you kindly quote me where the rules say:

I may not create or edit articles on your family or close connections. You especially may not edit these articles in a way which promotes them.

I don't think I'm promoting Mr. Null. I don't think I see where Wikipedia says a person who has prior contact with someone can't edit an article. It would be like saying anyone whose grandpa owned a Ferarri can't edit an article about one.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello 17:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC) thanks robot

Sign your comments properly

Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Just writing hello and the time is not enough. The signature goes AFTER the comment, not before. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Larry Dvoskin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Dvoskin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Dvoskin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]