Talk:Paul Gustafson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Paul Gustafson is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
[edit] Ok ok I got out of hand.
I agree, some of the things I wrote in this article are, officially, unfounded. Untill I can get quotes from students online etc i will leave it be. However, I was merely trying to restore teh balance in this article, for it is surely written by none other than Paul Gustafson himself. There are many examples of where he used the word 'my' in previous editions of this entry, refering to himself. Also where it states his first pay packet, this is can only be one of two things. 1) Paul wrote this himself or 2) Paul's previous employer has written this and is in violation of the data protection act. If this entry is to be kept unbiased it should be written by a person who does not know Mr Gustafson, a quality I believe no previous writer believes. Crusader1089 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is not written from a biased point of view and the tone is neutral. If read carefully the article reflects Mr Gustafson's more eccentric and perhaps controversial characteristics but does so subtley - for example, it is needless for anyone to point out that 'notoriety' is not necessarily positive, as the word does not have wholly positive connotations. Claims made by Mr Gustafson are cited as such. Please quote any part of the article's current revision which you believe to be untrue.
Incidentally, details of Mr Gustafson's first pay packet appear in an interview given to a local newspaper group and is referenced accordingly.
John Mason 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
I'll start the list of changes required off...
° The sporting achievements section should really be removed.
° The entire context so often used in the article: "he claims, Mr. Gustafson claims." is not correct language for an encyclopaedia. If all articles on this site could claim whatever they want it would have died ages ago. Unless there's proof (which does not include Mr. Gustafson crying that it is true,) then it's not a factual information for this article.
° There needs to be his actual date of birth - not around about a certain year.
° It would be better off if the long list of titles at the start of the article for Mr. Gustafson was shortened. Only highly important biographical articles would require such a long list. For instance: "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born May 6, 1953)[1] is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service, Leader of the Labour Party, and Member of Parliament for the constituency of Sedgefield in the North East of England."
° There needs to be a mention under controversy that Mr. Gustafson is often regarded as a self promoter who abuses public meetings to promote his own franchise.
If those changes are not made I can only regard this article as a biased article that someone has edited to promote and glorify the man.
Tzu Men 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything Tzumen just said. Good man that editor. And well said.
Crusader1089 21:33 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date Of Birth
Contrary to some people's theories, this article has not been contributed to whatsoever by the subject himself. The only evidence we have on his date of birth is that he was that he was 48 on May 29 2004 (see http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/5/29/11476.html). If his birthday is earlier than May 29, this means he was born in 1956. If his birthday is on, or later than May 29, this means he was born in 1955. Although the latter scenario is more likely, as there are more months after May than before it, we cannot know this for certain, so until anyone can provide any hard evidence for his actual year of birth, it seems more sensible to err on the side of caution and state his birth date as circa 1955. Badeggbill 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Badeggbill. I have just noticed that another This is Oxfordshire page gives Mr Gustafson's age as being 46 on November 21 2002 ([[1]]). If my deductions are correct, this means Paul's birthday lies somewhere between November 21 1955 and May 29 1956. As this covers more months in 1956 than it does 1955, I am changing his birth date to circa 1956. As you clearly explain, the lack of certainty that unfortunately remains means circa must stay - as it is still entirely possible that Mr Gustafson has a late-November or December birthdate. John Mason 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotation Marks
I have just replaced the section entitled "The Future". It was originally removed by 172.143.167.60, who claimed "Paul himself wrote this? Notice MY". However, you may notice that the sentence: "Upon retirement, Paul plans 'to carry on writing childrens' books into my old age and have a holiday home somewhere I can fish in unpolluted, crystal clear seas'." contains quotation marks around the statement containing the word "my". In case anyone is unaware of the function of these punctuation marks, let me explain. Quotation marks denote a quote, thus enabling one to record in writing a person's words, without actually being that person. This means that the person who originally wrote the section on Paul's future hopes (that person being me, Badeggbill), was using something Paul himself had said, in an interview with a newspaper (which can be found here: http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2004/5/28/11526.html), and putting it into quotation marks, to show that I was not saying it, but that I was quoting what Paul said in the interview. I hope I have made this clear enough, and that no one will again delete sections of this article claiming them to be written by the subject himself.
Badeggbill 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"Quotation marks denote a quote" No ####? Crusader1089 11:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, absolutely no ####. None whatsoever. Shocking isn't it!? Badeggbill 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A few points
- Badeggbill is named after a character in the subject's picture book, someone would REALLY have to be addicted to the books and have a sad life to actually use that for a username on the internet.
- Badeggbill has a photo of Paul Gustafson.
- Badeggbill seems to know every source there is to find out about Paul Gustafson.
What can this mean?
Either:-
- Badeggbill is Paul Gustafson and has created this article for extra extension of his ego. It's very unlikely that someone would know so much about someone that few people have ever heard of. Furthermore the fact he can find the evidence and quotes definitely suggests that he is the man himself.
- He is a stalker of Mr. Gustafson. As I have said, someone would have to addicted to know all this information about Paul Gustafson and then fight violently in his defence whenever the article or Mr. Gustafson's credentials are questioned.
Go on Badeggbill! Delete this! We all know who you are, and we pity you more than anything else.
172.142.37.79 12:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to 172.142.37.79
'What can this mean?' Gosh, Badeggbill has done some research before editing an article and has found several relevant websites and obtained a photo! What could this mean? Perhaps, Badeggbill can use the Internet? The fact that he (or she) and I are able to find evidence and quotes is because we seem to be competent researchers. I have seen no evidence of 'violent' defence of Mr Gustafson, just a will to protect an article from obvious and inappropriate vandalism. John Mason 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Mr Mason. I must say I haven't read anything as funny as 172.142.37.79's theories since I read my first Eggbert book. Badeggbill 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alias
Unlike Charles Darwin or William Shakespeare, so curiously cited by 172.142.37.79, Paul Gustafson has often requested when teaching that students refer to him by his surname initial - thus "Mr Paul Gustafson" becomes "Mr G". Indeed, I would hazard that more students know him as "Mr G" than "Mr Gustafson", "Paul", "the Pike King" or "Pool Gustafson", despite these all (obviously) being accepted alternatives, used elsewhere in the article. As teaching is such an important part of Mr Gustafson's life and arguably the most interactive of his varied range of professions, acknowledging his adopted name seems to me to be nothing short of sensible.
However, of course if 172.142.37.79 is able to provide evidence that Charles Darwin was referred to as "Mr D" by his erstwhile acquaintances then please, go ahead and make this edit. Likewise, if I have overlooked Shakespeare's alternative moniker "Mr S", then in the interests of historical accuracy I would implore you to change that article appropriately and thank you for enlightening me on this matter.
John Mason 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speaks for itself
Anyone who has met Mr. Gustafson will only have to glance on this article and it's main creators to realise how biased it is, and it becomes far more evident looking at their responses to comments who they are. SO let the article speak for itself. Everyone who meets the Paul Gustafson knows that he is a very self centered individual who goes out of his way to promote himself, cutting into lesson time and abusing public get-togethers alike. I'm sure anything Badeggbill or John Mason reply with will just add to the tone of the article here. I will just point out though, that if it is indeed Mr. Gustafson making his own article, other than pitying him greatly, there is no argument against the fact that he could simply be using either account at the John Mason school, King Alfred's or his home - thus giving him different IP addresses as well as email accounts to create new accounts from. And I can say as a person who has met Paul Gustafson quite a lot, that he really would go this far.
P.S. Sarcasm seems to have slipped past John Mason.
172.142.37.79 21:48, 28 March 2007
172.142.37.79 is Correct, when covering at King ALfred's, Paul spends considerable parts of the lesson promoting his books and this controversy should be noted in this article, especially as the article presently is so biased towards him. Also RE. Badeggbill being Paul himself, when asked during class if he wrote this article himself was particually quick to dismiss it and the whole of wikipedia, describing it as "a load of rubbish, you know, anyone could have writern it, It's a load of rubbish." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.254.155 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Go home, 172.142.37.79
This 172.142.37.79, who curiously does not seem to be bothered to register, seems to be taking this vendetta far too seriously. I am the first to admit this article did seem a tad congratulatory of Mr Gustafson, but this particular IP address has been making some very stupid, unsubstantiated claims. This, as was said before, is not a forum for unsubstantiated speculation or libel. Please stop, 172.142.37.79, before you are banned from editing or this page is locked from public changes, which would be a real shame.
However, if Badeggbill is Mr Gustafson, this article ought to conform to [Wikipedia's autobiography rules], and would preferably be rewritten by an impartial editor.
Uberfrog 17:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
Badeggbill, you enjoy Eggbert books? Are you 5 years or something? No offence to you, it is quite reasonable to be ####### ########, but no sane adult could enjoy eggbert books without mild altering drugs. They are books aimed at primary school children. Sure, they have rymne a plot and some pretty pictures, but they are in the same league as Noddy or Postman pat in terms of maturity.
Secondly; the picture of Paul is yours? Yours personally? Why the ##### #### do you have a photograph of Paul? Are you some sort of stalker? Do you hunt him down to take photos? Is that why you know so much about this man? Or is it, as many people believe, you are Paul Gustafson. I dont have a picture of Paul, nor does anyone else i know. A newspaper might, or a school, but no random stranger will. And you claim to have a picture of Paul, taken by you, Badeggbill? This coupled with your love of Egggbert books adds more evidense to the fairly thick file of evidence which suggests you are Paul. If you are not paul you seem to me you have a really really ####### up mind. Crusader1089 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is an inappropriate forum for discussion of mild altering-drug habits. I'm not saying that I have one myself, but if I did (and I'm not saying I do - because I don't), then this talk page would be an inappropriate discussion forum. It wouldn't necessarily be that bad a thing to have such a habit anyway - I am confident that many people find mild altering-drugs most helpful to overcome a range of mild altering-related conditions. Either way (not that there is any suggestion that I do mild altering-drugs), mild altering-drugs should not be discussed on this talk page, as I'm sure they are irrelephandt to Paul Gustafson and this is an inappropriate forum for such discussion. I'm not offended by the suggestion that I suffer from a psychological condition, but I find the language that you have adopted really really offensive. As you can see, I've edited out offensive terms such as ######## ########, ##### #### and #######. Please refrain from using such profanities in the future, or you risk being banned from Wikipedia.
As for the assertion concerning my photographic contribution, I once again refute suggestions that I am Paul Gustafson, or indeed a stalker of said Paul. I am very sorry to read that neither of your friends has been able to obtain photos of Mr Gustafson. Perhaps you should try writing to him at The Old School, First Turn, Wolvercote, Oxford OX2 8BP, however I do believe he is rather selective about whom he gives photos to. If you do manage to obtain some, and one/more than one is/are much better/a bit better than the one I have provided, please upload it/them and include it/them in the article!
Antway; weather ot noy i have i photo of paul is all so entirely irrelephandt!!1.
Badeggbill 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC) ~
users' choice of books and means for acquiring photos has little to do with the article. please try to refrain from personal attacks, and instead assume good faith. i suggest returning to tzu men's list of suggested changes and discussing what should be changed on the page itself. Djchallis 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Badeggbill I do apologise for any terms you found offensive. I have been a little angry all around these last few weeks and it was unfair of me to vent this at you. Any photographs you may or may not own, any books you may or may not read, are not my business and I am sorry. I will now follow DJChallis' advice and go about making the changes mentioned by Tzu-men. Crusader1089 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Keown
I removed this claim as it seems very unlikely. This is because, as outlined in the edit comment, Martin was signed on an Arsenal schoolboy contract. As a schoolboy Martin would almost certainly have been playing football with his friends for many years, especially to get fit enough to achieve an Arsenal contract. If Paul DID introduce Martin to the sport it would have been when the boy was maybe 4, 5 years old which hardly counts. I was introduced to reading, writing and arithmatic at that age, so probably was Einstein or Newton. Should their primary school teachers say "I taught him sums you know. The old 1+1, 2+3=5 stuff"? If their maths teachers hadn't taught them at that age someone else would have, such is the level they are ingrained into our society. Same goes for football. No-one in England hasn't tried playing football at one point in their childhood.
If however anyone can prove Gustafson did introduce Keown to the sport, even if just as a PE teacher (in which the article should state it was as a student) please do revert the edit. I have searched the internet far and wide for evidence either way and found none so I felt it should be removed.
Also I would like to add this is not in anyway hearsay and conjecture. I have looked for Keown's education record and Paul's employment and could not find a place where they cross. This removal was merely logic. There is no evidence that Paul did not introduce Martin Keowrn to football but there is no evidence that he did either. Claims should not have anyplace in an encyclopaedia. For instance, I, Crusader1089, claim to have invented a program that makes it easier to aim (aim-bot) in counter-strike 1.6 as part of a mod team. I haven't. But its possible, like Paul's claim. However if I went around saying I had people would demand proof, or just tell me to go away and leave me alone with my unfounded claims. And it would never, ever enter a respected body of information. The only way I think that this edit could be put back is to ask Martin Keown if Paul Gustafson ever taught/played with him and I wager Matin would reply "Paul who?" Crusader1089 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angling
I removed Angling from the header as although he has made fishing videos it is not his sole source of income. Nor has it ever been in his life I belive. It is also detailed later in the article as his hobby. If we listed all of Newtons hobby's on his page it would go on all day. In addition biologist=naturalistCrusader1089 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding edits by Crusader1089 c. 2nd April 2007
Thank you for making some considered and thoughtful edits. You seem so much more sensible than that nasty 172.142.37.79. I must say I can totally understand why you have challenged the sustained inclusion of the Martin Keown claim, because it has been a long time with no citation proffered.
The reason I disagree with many of Tzu Men's suggested edits is that I believe a Wikipedia biography should try to provide as full a picture as possible about its subject. Crusader, if I may be so bold as to presume to informally call you that, you seem to have some personal knowledge of Mr Gustafson. Would you say that Mr Gustafson had made many claims in your experience? You see I reckon that a good biography should reflect the main characterstics of its subject and so in this case it should document a range of the claims that Paul has apparently made, enabling other users to then provide appropriate references if and when they are found. Of course, the difficulty with this policy arises when citations are requested for claims that editors state they have heard Mr Gustafson make, without being able to provide evidence.
I am aware that Tzu Men complains that a "claims" context is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I do not think that the whole article is or indeed should be written like this - obviously, it must adhere to Wikipedia's policies - but it is important to distinguish between:
- anyone claiming that Mr Gustafson has done anything
- someone reporting the fact that Mr Gustafson claims to have done something.
Therefore writing the claim that "Paul has lost bigger fish in Scotland" would not be appropriate, but writing "Paul says he has lost bigger fish in Scotland" is perfectly permissable.
When a public figure makes a claim (as in Al Gore's alleged claim to have invented the Internet) it becomes significant because of who they are, not because it is necessarily true.
So where does that leave the article? Well, I would sugest that for a well-established claim such as that regarding Martin Keown, we should consider leaving it in. If you consider yourself to be a reasonable, fairly representative Wikipedian and you doubt that Mr Gustafson actually did introduce Martin keown to football, then others like you reading the article will probably share the same doubt - after all, it is made very clear that this suggestion is only a claim and that no evidence has been found to support it. Removing the claim altogether, I would suggest, detracts from the article's ability to express the character of it's biographee. However, I won't make this reversion before you, Crusader, have had the right of reply to this.
Controversy regarding the long list of "titles" at the start has arisen from a misunderstanding. Tzu Men is right that only highly important people would have gathered (or indeed warrant) a long list of titles. However, Mr Gustafson has no titles - merely several labels, reflecting his varied range of professions. It is totally counter-productive to arbitrarily seek to remove some of these labels because of a misguided belief that it is not possible for a single person to have done so much. I reject attempts to shorten this list because I believe Wikipedia should be accessible to everyone. People aware of only one of Mr Gustafson's specialist fields, such as 'angling', are unlikely to pursue any further, or at least take seriously, an article which omits to mention this proficiency in its opening, especially in view of the notoriety Mr Gustafson has gained as a world-renowned angler (it is most certainly not JUST a hobby - he is a local author but an international angler - have a look at this [[2]]).
As any biologist will confirm, there is a great deal of difference between naturalism/natural history and biology and I do not understand the motive to reduce this list for the sake of it and so am reverting these changes. Furthermore, Mr Gustafson has saved two outdoor pools. Two. Additionally, he has run many workshops for local children, held readings of his "Eggbert" books and used his work as a supply teacher to entertain and amuse students who I'm confident have appreciated his input in one way or another. Indeed, I am told there even exists a Paul Gustafson Appreciation Society! His contribution to the local community was officially recognised when he was invited to turn on Abingdon's Christmas lights in the Christmas season of 2004 - therefore I think 'dedicated contributer to the local community' should stay.
Circa is used by historians when the exact date of an event is unknown but a good estimate exists. Unless any user is able to personally confirm that the Hinksey Pool campaign took place specifically in 1996, then it should remain an approximation.
John Mason 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I wont address all the issues I would wish to in this edit but I will talk about Martin Keown.
You cited the example of Al Gore inventing the internet. This claim is not true, but there is substantial evidence to support a claim. The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 was concieved by Al gore, as was the term Information Superhighway. He was the first US Vice-president to hold interviews via a feed over the internet. Also I believe that Al Gore himself never claimed to invent it (though he played a major part in shaping it) and the democrats used his work towards the internet to help one of the US election campaigns. Although the internet cannot be contributed to one man or one organisation if one man had to be chosen then Al Gore would be a strong candidate.
However as I said, I could not find any evidence that Paul and Martin ever crossed paths. Not only is their no evidence that there is a connection between them if they did cross paths, as I said before, it would have been as a small child at a point in the child's life when the entire class probably had not played football before. So if Paul had intdroduced him to teh sport there would be no worth to it. If however a young lad of 13-14 named Martin Keown had never kicked a ball in his life, Paul became his teacher, confidence grew and thus a footballer was born, by all means put that in.
I believe we cannot credit Paul for introducing a small 5-6 year old to a sport, as the boy would enevitably learn the sport anyway. That said I remind you, I could find no evidence that Paul and Martin ever met. Martin has never credited Paul nor, I believe, has he ever mentioned him. Thus I believe it is right to leave out the claim as unlike other claims in a encyclapaedia it has no basis of evidence. More on other edits later. Crusader1089 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with John Mason at this point. I think that the fact Mr Gustafson claims to have introduced Mr Keown to football is something that defines Mr Gustafson and says quite a bit about him. However, as there is no citation I think that it would be more accurate to say "It is claimed that Mr Gustafson claims to have..." Ozzypeely 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ozzypeely.
Crusader, you are missing my point. I am not suggesting that we credit Mr Gustafson for introducing Martin Keown to football and never have suggested this.
I am suggesting that it is noteworthy that Mr Gustafson claims to have introduced Martin Keown to football, regardless of the accuracy of the statement.
For example, if the Queen ever claimed to be a god, people would add this to biographies about her, even though the claim cannot be substantiated. The truth of such a claim would be irrelevant to its inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
My Al Gore example was designed to show this (even though it is unfair to Al Gore because he was misreported). Such a claim was newsworthy not because of the "High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991" supporting the claim, but because it would have been a big thing for him to suggest. Mr Gustafson's claims, whatever their basis in truth, are of both interest and relevance to this article. John Mason 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As it has been a while since Crusader planned to return with "more on other edits" and no-one has raised any objections, I am now going to follow Ozzypeely's advice and add "It is claimed that Mr Gustafson claims to have..." John Mason 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is claimed that is it claimed? Seems a little... OTT. Would it not be easier to leave it out all together? The reason I left this article is because, while I may disagree with some points written here, it is the closest to an accurate representation of Paul that we are likely to get. That is, once the Martin Keown part is removed. It may not seem a large problem but to me it is a major sticking point. There is not citation for the quote nor any evidence that they ever met. And it is claimed that Paul claims sounds rediculous. Far outside what an encyclopaedia should be writing. With your permission John, I would have it removed and then leaving the article as it is. That is, untill some new information about Paul comes to light. Crusader1089 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deal! Thanks for your help. John Mason 23:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV Check Template
I have gone through and checked the article and decided to remove the above template as it has been on the page for a long time and the massive amounts of biased, non-neutral content that was around when it was originally put into the article has been fixed.
However, I have added a dubious template after one section in the article which says:
| “ | Paul felt compelled to write the stories after a recurring dream, in which several eggs appeared to him. | ” |
This is one of the stupidest things I've heard all day. It may well be something he has said in one of the articles many sources though. If you happen to know which one, then by all means remove the tag and post the link as to verify the statement. Agent Blightsoot 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The quote is indeed rather humourous, but it is in fact a claim made in this interview: http://www.radiocherwell.com/audio/eggberts_interview_56k.rm (worth a listen to confirm several of the more eccentic facts about the man!), and so I've removed the tag from that statement. Also, thanks for removing the template. Badeggbill 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- hahahaha That's hilarious. What a genius. Agent Blightsoot 10:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This article has been the target of much vandalism lately. Please could all users be extra vigilant in spotting this and reverting it (and putting a warning on perpatrators' talk pages). Also check bot reverts because they don't always manage to remove all vandalism. Thanks. Badeggbill 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Athlete?
Why is he in the athletes category? I can't see any mention of athletics in teh article?. Billlion 10:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
From the section on sporting achievements:
| “ | In his earlier adult life, Paul embarked upon a promising athletic career, and represented England for running. Unfortunately following a serious injury, he was unable to continue with this, instead turning his sporting abilities to football training. | ” |
Badeggbill 13:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps retired athlete would be more appropriate?
-Crusader1089 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.131.151 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nicknames
I believe it is important to retain details of Mr Gustafson's nicknames or aliases for the purposes of clarity and clarification, as to many acquaintances he is predominantly known by these alternative monikers. Resultant bouts of vandalism, for example the multiple replacement of 'Pike' with 'Pikey', can be reverted and although recently persistent, are predominantly of unsustained and infrequent duration. Furthermore, vandalism subsequent to the withdrawal of alias details continued along much the same theme, raising immediate and pertinent questions regarding the success of the suggestion to permanently remove the relevant information. John Mason 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its just that his nicknames were becoming a bit of a magnet for vandalism. How about just including the most important one, and then reporting the vandalism if it comes from the same ip ranges? Billlion 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am fully cognisant with your concern and agree that preferably some reduction should occur. However it is difficult to ascertain the relative importance of each epithet - to the educational community he is known as 'Mr G', the angling community hail him as 'the Pike King' and activist circles presumably recognise him as 'Pool Gustafson'. Any suggestions? Could we distribute the nicknames to their relevant sections? John Mason 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reasons for Vandalism
We have to make the point that this article is vandalised so much because it is very biased towards the person in discusses. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Gustafson is such a narcissistic and self-sycophantic person causes many users to criticise where the content has been drawn from. Sure there are sources, but they are fanatically searched for ones. This is exemplified by the fact that he has been put into the athlete category for failing to fulfil any career at all, and also with specific note that previously the creator of this article gave Paul Gustafson more credit that even Charles Darwin in Famous Residents of Shrewsbury article (this has now changed as the article has been updated considerably, but the history of the page will prove this claim - fortunately.)
This article needs to be made neutral, and only contain decisive information on a person who is irrelevant to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.222.69 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stubbed it down
I've stubbed this right down because it was full of ridiculous statements and bits of trivia, and it was impossible to distinguish vandalism from the rest of the article. Please add only significant and well sourced fact to the article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is never any justification for removing mass quantities of sourced and relevant content on the basis of mindless vandalism. What you've done in essence is removed all the content and told people to re-add it, when what you should have done is checked the history logs for the vandalism and then removed it. If you don't have time, then simply report that you could do with some help on the Village Pump.
- You can't just cut a Class B article straight down into a stub because of a few problem users. I'll keep as close an eye as I can on this article. Agent Blightsoot 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
