Talk:Brad Greenspan

message: but we don't like the new home skin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.88 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  myspae rocks 

message: awsome 
lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.88 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  u rock 

message: How about a rightTOC after the first paragraph else some _NOTOC_ magic words? Emesee (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RightTOC 

message: This article is of terrible quality and appears to be very biased in favour of Mr. Greenspan.  Allegations and claims were made throughout the article that were unreferenced or contradicted the actual article referenced.  I would recommend the article be purged. Stoick (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased and Poorly Sourced Article

message: I'm removing the neutrality dispute tab for couple reasons, while I agree that the article is biased in favour of Brad Greenspan, the favoritism is not unlike the biased favour shown for the biographies of Sarah Palin, or Barrack Obama. I don't find this BLP much different in tone or biased than many other comprehensive biographies. The reason wikipedia allows biased views in favor living people is explained in the wikipedias policy WP:BLP. Funny thing about that policy is I disagree with it, as I believe it to be hypocritical, BLP claims neutrality but tends give to favour living people rather than a good balance between criticism and praise. But the sections on tone, which adheres wiki-editors to favour positive over negative comments in tone. BLP also calls for editors not to victimize or overly criticize the person in the biography (which is illogical in its subjective nature), cuts out a lot negative and leaves only positive comments without providing much utility or tools for comparative criticism. But if I have to live with Sarah Palin's biography being nothing but praise, and Obama's article being nothing but praise, then so do you.
I agree that the article is not very referenced or comprehensive, but except for the section on his filing a lawsuit against News corp... that was referenced. But I typically deny people from purging articles when they aren't willing to search for relevant citations or neutral ground. It's pretty easy to hit the delete button, but pretty hard to actually search for the relevant data that encompasses a man's live and how he became involved in myspace.
My final reason for deleting the neutrality dispute is that no one has really done much on this article since 2007, which sorta indicates to me that this articles neutrality is really a non-issue, and what we have here is another incomplete, not very well cited biographies.... So in that regard it's not special and the article can go on living with all the other thousands of incomplete and not very well cited biographies until someday, someone decides to put a little more effort into it than we have so far. cheers--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: It is a biased and poorly sourced article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brad Greenspan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160213/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/05/founder-news-corp-hijacked-myspace to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/05/founder-news-corp-hijacked-myspace
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified