User talk:Salander44
Nomination of Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot 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/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Velella Velella Talk 10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Salander44, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Salander44! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC) |
Self-aggrandizement?
Hello, Salander44. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No Self-aggrandizement
Thank you for your comment, User:Orangemike. I could agree with the premise that I have a COI if I had created a page for myself, but the page I did create was for a film that has been exhibited three times, including once in the Richfield Branch of the Akron-Summit County Public Library and twice on two different occasions at The Nightlight Cinema in Akron, Ohio [1], and the film is scheduled for exhibition again at Cleveland Comic Con [2] in October. It is included on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. I included seven reviews. Of those seven, I knew the author of one from being in the same movie in 2011 in Detroit, MI, but we have had no working relationship since that time inasmuch as he resides near Toronto, Canada and I reside in Cleveland. I do know a second author locally from Cleveland. I have absolutely no connection with any other of the remaining five reviewers. With respect to the film directly, I expect to have further reviews and screenings. Moreover, I have added no self-laudatory comments about myself or the film. I have not sought to add pictures of myself or stills from the film. I have in no way urged wikipedia users to see the film. The page is absolutely neutral, although I did try to find a way to add a poster as is shown in every other entry on wikipedia for a film. I readily acknowledge my own role in the creation of the film, but have not sought to conceal that relationship, as should be very apparent in the comments I have posted on the "Deletion Page." Indeed, if I understand the username creation guidelines, users are strongly advised against using their own name as a username to avoid harassment. I have no fear of transparency, and if there is any way for me to say that I created the page on the very face of the page, and if this met wikipedia standards, I would gladly do it. Salander44 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Confused
Hello, Hayman30. I'm confused because when I went to your talk page, I could not find your comment. Right now I'm subject to a deletion procedure, so I'm reluctant to make further changes to the page, so I have no idea what change you are referring to. All I can think of is my addition that I was the author of the page, which I added to address a COI concern from a different wikipedia editor. The only == July 2017 == comment that I could find on your talk page was for a different user altogether.
Got it!
Thanks for your edit, Hayman30. I'm still learning my way around wikipedia but now see your reversion as I review history. As you look at my user history, you can see quite a few early edits that I made to try to address specific issues that had been raised. I have tried to avoid major revisions since then, although I did add a <ref> to the Akron Beacon Journal article. My last revision was to make clear that I was the author of the article. I did that to address COI issues raised earlier on this talk page. I wanted to be absolutely transparent, but if the revision was inappropriate, thank you for the reversion. I want to do this right and I don't want to be confrontational. I'm new at this and any help I get is welcome. Salander44 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)