Talk:Peter Wray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-28. The result of the discussion was Keep.

A tag has been placed on Template:Db-nocontext, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 24.77.227.155 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 unremarkable / not notable 2 Page Vandalism 3 Notability 4 Page Vandalism Continued 5 Notability 6 Notability

[edit] unremarkable / not notable

Peter Wray is a tireless self promoter and this article refelcts his writing style that can be found on the numerous web pages he maintains about himself. He is not notable in any worthwile sense. His claimed writing and film credits are unsubstantiated. He made one brief appearance on g4 Tech TV promoting software that "cast magic spells" that, while hillarious, was in fact a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Articles

  7. Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, 

group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or

significance of its subject. If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has 

been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.

````

Re: References added AFTER paged nominated for deletion and article edited at that time to refect those items . 1 thru 4 unsupportable and hardly reflective of grand claims in original article. Item 5 "American Entertainment Group Inc" relates to an unfinshed, loosley scripted film that Peter Wray partially wrote and co-produced with his cousin and other individuals, made with volunteer labour based on false claims Peter and his cousin made to volunteers (film students and movie wannabees) that he "had a deal".. and unedited footage was sold for a pitance to pay legal fees arrising from numerous claims against Peter Wray as a result of the botched project. If anything, the edited article and half-baked references only prove article and subject not at all note worthy and in fact is edited and maintained by Peter Wray himself.

[edit] Page Vandalism

It's obvious that the vandalism done to this page is the result of a personal grievance of some sort which you should take up with Peter Wray himself (as a self-proclaimed expert you must be able to know how to contact him) and not make a nuisance of yourself by making more work for me here. The appearance mentioned was not specifically on "g4 Tech TV" as you have cited which indicates you're actually not familiar with the subject matter itself even though you seemed to believe it was 'hilarious', did you get that off some message board? I am complimented that you think my writing style reflects Peter's writing style but I don't think you're actually familiar with Peter's writing style at all. I suggested this post several months ago initially because I saw several Wikipedia entries that referenced his work without naming him specifically. Like I said, if you have any personal problems with Peter Wray, take it up with him but quit vandalizing my work with your obnoxious, off the mark statements. Everything you've written over the past few days actually validates the Wikipedia entry but your assertations are wrong, your facts are wrong and obviously laced with malice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittengirlz (talk • contribs)

Vandalism aside, I do not believe that this Peter Wray is notable according to our biography criteria. If no sources are provided to back up the claims in the article within the next seven days, I will nominate it for deletion. Flyingtoaster1337 17:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to initially vandalize, no argument. The fact he wasted my time and money and weeks of my life with what was nothing but lies, obvioulsy wiki not the place to settle that score either. However, even though I am sure Kittengirlz is in fact Peter Wray the primary issue remains... he is a nobody, the article provides ZERO sources tp back up claims, and does not belong on Wikipedia.

[edit] Notability

Hi, sorry but is this guy really notable of mention in an encyclopeadia? i dont think so.Ive tried a google search and to be honest there are some hits but there are a load of other hits too. You even said that he created a lot of the sites about him, this emphasises that hes not reputable enough for someone else too? (Neostinker 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Page Vandalism Continued

Actually, Neostinker, a page vandal with questionable gossip, stated that Wray authored pages about himself, nobody else has said that and I'm not aware of any instance where he has. The personal grievance continues but I made a suggestion which Vandal apparently didn't heed. I got the phone number for Wray's development company, Vandal apparently couldn't, but Vandal, you still consider yourself more qualified or informed to offer disruptive and questionable comments. You have also posted statements to this page that are factually inaccurate. When I first read them they struck me as preposterous and I checked, apparently you didn't. The interesting contradictory result of your actions however essentially validates everything myself and others have contributed. If it isn't notable, why or how was it you were looking ? Contrary to your inane and ill founded opinions, Peter Wray never wrote or co-wrote a movie with his cousin, ever. I specifically called the production office in NY and confirmed that no footage of any movie was ever sold unedited to 'pay legal fees' or offset any 'claims' and even something was, how does it relate ? Just as you have wrongly self-appointed yourself an authority on someone or their worth, Wikipedia isn't the place to air your personal grievances or make libelous statements either.

The referenced, SEC Filing clearly states that is the business acquisition of "computerized software for image and animation (and integrated processes in connection therewith) relative to the creation and manipulation of motion pictures and associates uses." - Hence, noted promoter of technology etc. not 'volunteer movie makikng' or whatever you're ranting about.

The SEC filing clearly states that and yet you couldn't even read that before you continued with your wrong-placed sour grapes. You're involving yourself in this discussion due to page vandalism, not a 'contrary point of view'. You're so determined to find fault with everything that you didn't even read the references. And yes, the references were added as part of an ongoing effort to improve the article - There's nothing conspiratorial in that and there's nothing convincing in your arguments other other than I still resent your immature and obnoxious page vandalism. As to why I cited the SEC filing, it's because I am preparing other references that relate specifically to the technology mentioned.

You're entitled to whatever idiotic theories you want, including your paranoid theory that I'm Peter Wray, that is entirely your prerogative. I'm not the only one who has positively contributed to this page by the way and I didn't even write the original article. What isn't your prerogative is vandalizing a page, making statements that other people think are obnoxious and ridiculous, not to mention delusional and most specifically factually inaccurate. I brought your post to the attention of someone who has worked with him for 20 years and they told me that any of the rantings you posted "doesn't sound like first-hand information at all and sounds like all the other crackpot gossip.". Like I said, I resent that I've made the effort to make a contribution and all you're offering is criticism of my contribution and an ignorant personal vendetta. You're just as able to get clarification of details as I am but you haven't done so. I said it was your prerogative to call me Peter Wray and it's my prerogative to call you a crackpot and ask that you please take your loser attitude somewhere else or contact the development company in NYC and take your personal matters up there. Although based on my conversations it sounds like BS. Like I said, you must know how to reach them because you have so many intimate and accurate details. Give me a break and make some positive contributions somewhere and don't tell me to back up FACTS when your BS is so far out in left field that you sound mentally unstable. I work for a company that dealt with Peter's company from 1998-2001, your statements are indicative of somebody who should get a life. I'm not getting paid to contribute here and I don't have an agenda. I'm contributing because I had the chance to work with an amazing guy whose achievements continue to astound everybody who's familiar with his work. I haven't listed any of the products or media here in keeping with my own idea of what Wikipedia should be (This isn't a sales forum and your rants aren't part of my idealistic view either, but there are entries to well known commercial entities in Wikipedia that are actually Peter Wray's work and I have deliberately not cross-linked to those articles for a variety of reasons, one of which was not to commercialize the entry.) If you were actually capable of using the internet or reading, you wouldn't be so in the dark. Instead it seems that you believe you're making a contribution by imagining delusions of self-persecution while whining and making libelous statements on a public message forum, and destroying my work numerous times. Myself and others who have contributed, know what we're talking about, your credibility is nil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittengirlz (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notability

Hi, sorry but is this guy really notable of mention in an encyclopeadia? i dont think so.Ive tried a google search and to be honest there are some hits but there are a load of other hits too. You even said that he created a lot of the sites about him, this emphasises that hes not reputable enough for someone else too? (Neostinker 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Notability

I wrote the original article in back in October 2006. The genesis of the article started when I read an article about gun control and court room safety in the Washington Post about a year earlier (Atlanta Court Room Shootings). I knew something about that article that nobody else seemed to know about the real origins of the article. I happened to know that contrary to the byline and the quotes from trial lawyers in the news story, which went across the entire country, the entire story was actually the work of somebody else and that person was Peter Wray. That's when I started doing some digging and discovered that there was a vast body of news stories and pop culture references that were traceable back to one source, my original article topic, and it's not hard to see the pattern once you know how it works. In the process, I also found that I wasn't the only person watching this pattern unfold over the past 10 years or so. When I read the posts on this page, after what I have learned elsewhere I couldn't help but laugh because my first thought that whoever was so worked up about the article and wanted it deleted was likely Wray himself. It would likely be against Wikipedia's guidelines for me to comment here or provide known products or news stories that would make it obvious that my article is NOTABLE. I read here that somebody thinks he's creating sites about himself, which is ridiculous considering that it's very difficult to find his name obviously attached to something online. I'll point out however, it isn't the least bit hard to find his work online and in the real world, once you start following the trail. That same person should also figure out what the term what ghostwriter really means or if you can see other Wikipedia entries that mention stuff that thousands of people know leads back to my article's subject, they would quickly figure out that NOTABLE wouldn't be an issue. In a salute to kittengirlz, keep at it babe, the only heat you're catching seems to be illiterate anyway. Cheers! NotWaldo 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)