User talk:Edwardolive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edward Olive[edit]

I have placed a tag on the article Edward Olive, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Edward Olive is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Edward Olive. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not just remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. -- SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

November 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Edward Olive has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Klapwijk[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Philip Klapwijk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Olive may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)



As explained below, I've look at 2 of your articles. First, I call your attention to our general rules about promotionalism .

A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't include material that would better belong in an advertisement or a web page, such as a detailed list of minor roles or minor products or TV interview or web contributions, or of executives or branch offices.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients or supporters --that sort of content is considered promotional.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. . And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. And remember that if you are notable, other people will know it, and write the article. That you have to write it yourself tends to show just the opposite.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for the presence of sources that show notability. The best way of rewriting is to use the WP:Article Wizard, which will guide you towards an acceptable article if one is possible.

For further information see our general guides to writing articles, WP:PLAIN and WP:FIRST; see also our list of the things we don't do here, WP:NOT, and our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

And , of course, remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material) , the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)

Philip Klapwijk[edit]

As reviewing administrator, I decided not to delete it. I'm not certain it shows notability , but it's good enough to pass speedy. What I did with it is to remove material that is totally inappropriate and will be viewed as promotional--such as links to every article we have about the subject. Excessive internal links, and unnecessary see alsos for what is already prominent in the article--always look promotional. We don't normally make External links to web postings and the like, though we can mention formally published articles in the article itself. Nor do we make external links to lists of articles that mention him in sources like Bloomberg. What you're trying to do is claim notability based on his being an analyst who is frequently quoted--it's best to give key refs in the main text, but there are quite a number of such refs, especially from Bloomberg, so I didn't remove the links. It's my experience that it's relatively difficult to sustain an article based on notability of this sort--most AfDs where that's the issue have been closed as delete. This is more extensive than many such, and I do not know what would happen-- AfD can be quite unpredictable. It helps to have a ref to some 3rd party source which says explicitly he's a leading expert, and says it in a substantial way, not just in passing. The article has enough of a chance that it's worth working on to make sure there's nothing people would object to. If it get's a little better I probably will not nominate it for AfD myself, but of course anyone else can.

Edward Olive[edit]

See my note above about what should not be included. There are two possible bases for notability : one is the acting, the other is the photography. For the acting, notability is normally considered to consist of major roles in notable films--I need to check the films listed there. For the photography, the rules are at WP:CREATIVE--we normally need major prizes (& runner-up doesn't count) , or work that is part of the permanent collection of major museums (advertising work can count if it has been written about--, or references such as reviews providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I read the articles/interviews--they might be usable for notability. It helps very much to have a relatively modest article, especially if it's an autobiography--if I took the present one to AfD, the odds are that it would be deleted. Perhaps you should do the first trimming. Let me know on my talk p. when I should look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Two men[edit]

Two different men seem to be logging on with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)