Talk:Ryan-Mark Parsons

Ryan-Mark Parsons was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 27, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		North8000 I'm grateful for your review of the page and your kind feedback too. Makes everything worth the effort. JPA24 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to users editing the page

You may agree or disagree with the content of the article, regardless, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss these ideas. I'm learning and wish to improve my knowledge of Wikipedia through speaking with other users. Before making disruptive edits, I urge you to communicate content changes on this talk page. A banned user restored this page by reverting a redirect. The blanking and redirection (vandalism) was made by an unregistered user, who contravened deletion discussion. See WP:BRV "Does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". JPA24 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page question

Hello Drmies. In reference to the blanking and redirecting. There has already been discussion over the recent redirecting by Atlantic306 on another user's talk page.

There was an agreement, which I'm sure Atlantic306 can agree, that an editor who was recently banned 'recreated the article'. As another user commented in the discussion too: "Perhaps they didn't realise that the page had only been redirected 18 minutes before by an unregistered user who was acting in contravention to a recent deletion discussion."

There have been many examples of disruptive editing to the page, as the subject is controversial this is expected. Therefore, there have been several editors, some of which are seasoned Wikipedia editors, who have restored the page after redirects that contravenes deletion discussion in the page's history. There has already been a discussion over the notability of the subject and the consensus meant the article can stay on Wikipedia. As I've explained too, the recreation of this article by the now banned editor was because an unregistered user redirected the article a few minutes before. I've already declared multiple times my neutrality and independence from any subject I edit on this platform. JPA24 (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're a single-purpose account and your declarations of neutrality ring very hollow. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for recent edits to the page Drmies. I'm always learning from other Wikipedia users about what kind of content is suitable for Wikipedia and I felt you've improved the article by making it more succinct. I can understand your concerns, so far I have mainly focused editing this article and I'm getting guidance from other users and welcoming productive edits to increase rating to C-Class, at least. That's my objective before moving onto another subject and spending time improving its quality for Wikipedia. However, I currently continue to edit Apprentice-related subjects and my favourite shows like Come Dine with Me. I hope you understand I'm building my confidence on this platform; getting to know all of Wikipedia's policies and building connections with other users. It's unpleasant to think that what I'm doing here could be seen as nefarious. JPA24 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - JPA24, surely you understand that editors raise their eyebrows if they see someone focus on one article exclusively. Expanding your scope of activity would be useful. Bringing the article up to C or higher is a fine goal; it can be done by writing neutrally and economically, with reliable sources. Looking back through the history I see material like this--which really needs to be cut (it's still in there). Even if it weren't verified to a tabloid, and even if it had actually happened already, it's celebrity gossip and not encyclopedic information. Thank you, and thank you Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Drmies I totally understand your point. From my point of view, I took this article as my way to train and to develop my expertise of this platform. I also wanted to achieve C-Class on an article that I had created. I will look to expand my scope. I have made some edits already on other articles, I just wanted to grow my confidence in editing here before expanding into other areas. I hope that makes sense. Also, thanks so much to you and Ponyo for your continuous help and guidance - I do appreciate it. JPA24 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

This is some discussion related to this article at my talk page. User_talk:North8000#Support_on_a_page_you_reviewed North8000 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Parsons' appearance in The Apprentice Best Bits is up for debate. He has appeared in episodes since the start of this new special series, but they only feature old clips. This should be discussed with other users as to whether it should be included as another TV credit on the article. JPA24 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brand ambassador for Gucci?

In the Early Life section, I read this. Perhaps this is a British expression but is this a fancy way of saying a salesperson? It appears puffery. Ifnord (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ifnord. You could be right. I referred to the article in Radio Times, but it could just mean salesperson. JPA24 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI

User_talk:212.161.4.84 is registered to the Houses of Parliament, where Parsons works. Orange sticker (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will look over these recent changes by the anonymous submission and remove anything that could make this article favourable to the subject. Agree the likelihood could be him or colleagues that work for Parsons / alongside Parsons. JPA24 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all edits and think best to review changes to see if they reflect any accuracy and to ensure this article remains neutral. Unsure if edits are accurate and will check sources that anonymous submission added to article. JPA24 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]