User talk:The Dinkle: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
4.On the day that you created the page about Carryl Varley another user with the Ip 81.153.166.110 made changes to the same articles page but also edited the name Carryl Varley in a list of guests on another tv show. (These were the only edits made by this IP address)It is unlikely this information could have been found without inside knowledge, and given how unknown this presenter is it appears unlikely that 2 individuals would be writing about her on the same day.<br /> |
4.On the day that you created the page about Carryl Varley another user with the Ip 81.153.166.110 made changes to the same articles page but also edited the name Carryl Varley in a list of guests on another tv show. (These were the only edits made by this IP address)It is unlikely this information could have been found without inside knowledge, and given how unknown this presenter is it appears unlikely that 2 individuals would be writing about her on the same day.<br /> |
||
As you can see, given all these reasons, I felt that there was a need to question your motives for these nominations and changes. I am now aware that you say that you have no other motive-and that is fair enough- I hope you can see why it might have looked that way. I would only point out to you that you may be doing this tv presenter harm by making it appear that she is nominating her colleagues for deletion. They are very likely to check their own articles and read the discussions that have gone on. I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I think it is important to think of the professional harm that you can do to people about whom you write articles. [[User:Hotmann|Hotmann]] |
As you can see, given all these reasons, I felt that there was a need to question your motives for these nominations and changes. I am now aware that you say that you have no other motive-and that is fair enough- I hope you can see why it might have looked that way. I would only point out to you that you may be doing this tv presenter harm by making it appear that she or someone related to her is nominating her colleagues for deletion. They are very likely to check their own articles and read the discussions that have gone on. I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I think it is important to think of the professional harm that you can do to people about whom you write articles. [[User:Hotmann|Hotmann]] |
||
==AfD nomination of [[Carryl Varley]]== |
==AfD nomination of [[Carryl Varley]]== |
||
Revision as of 21:47, 26 February 2007
Your nominations for deletion and Carryl Varley
Hi there,
I saw your comment regarding myself and others noting that you created an article about a presenter named Carryl Varley and then nominated many of her co-presenters for deletion. I was not accusing you of anything-simply making the point that your motives for nomination should be taken into account by voters, and that I thought there might be a WP:COI
My reasons for noting it were as follows:
1. You created a page for this tv presenter. In the AFD discussion it was pointed out to you that it was unlikely and unverfiable that she was the SINGER of the songs that were mentioned, as opposed to an actor/frontwoman or not related to the song at all (as all evidence pointed to the contrary i.e. British Book of hit singles, discography etc), and you did not change the article to reflect this. In fact you removed a link added by an experienced user as a "spam link" so that the only links were to the presenters cv and a page promoting the presenters on the television companies own website.
2. You have nominated for deletion other presenters from the same channel. You have also made edits to other female tv presenters articles that whilst you have marked them as minor have reduced those presenters seeming importance. i.e. changing the name of channels, changing "main presenter" to less important sounding phrases etc. You have also nominated for deletion presenters that are far better known, and have far greater claim to a wikipedia entry than Caryl Varley. i.e. Elisa Portelli.
3.I see that today you have also added Carryl Varley to the Quiz Tv article although it is outdated information and does not meet wikipedia criteria. (By the way, you marked this edit as minor. The edit you made does not count as a minor edit).
4.On the day that you created the page about Carryl Varley another user with the Ip 81.153.166.110 made changes to the same articles page but also edited the name Carryl Varley in a list of guests on another tv show. (These were the only edits made by this IP address)It is unlikely this information could have been found without inside knowledge, and given how unknown this presenter is it appears unlikely that 2 individuals would be writing about her on the same day.
As you can see, given all these reasons, I felt that there was a need to question your motives for these nominations and changes. I am now aware that you say that you have no other motive-and that is fair enough- I hope you can see why it might have looked that way. I would only point out to you that you may be doing this tv presenter harm by making it appear that she or someone related to her is nominating her colleagues for deletion. They are very likely to check their own articles and read the discussions that have gone on. I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I think it is important to think of the professional harm that you can do to people about whom you write articles. Hotmann
AfD nomination of Carryl Varley
An editor has nominated Carryl Varley, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carryl Varley and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome
Please accept my appology if I offended you at the AfD discussions. My intent was not to offend and you were not singled out. I've been making the point for some time that editors should hang around for a while before jumping in to the issues which require an understanding of the guidelines. Although with that said, there may be little continuity to the current guidelines and with everything at WP these are subject to daily edits and shifting consensus.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a prickly pear, but you will generally know where I stand.
If I can ever be a help to you along the way, drop me a line.
Cheers!
Kevin