User talk:Demize

Welcome!

Hello, Demize, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like KDeland, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Imperat§ r^(Talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I'm not sure why both of my posts have been flagged. I have not written anything that could be construed as biased or not based entirely on facts and references. Please advise what I have done wrong so I can fix it. I'm just trying to ensure the right information is up about this company and its CEO. Confused! Kirstinhepburn (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See Ms. Hepburns open admission of COI here. WuhWuzDat 01:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I posted on her user page about it, explaining the reasoning behind the CSD nominations. julianmh (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, mainly because you have a Conflict of Interest about the subject of the articles, as well as because Vision critical doesn't show how it's notable. (reposted from the TB on Ms. Hepburn's page - I wasn't aware this is what they were for at the time I posted it) julianmh (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does working for a company automatically constitute conflict of interest? If a reasonable person can see that the information I am providing is unbiased, then it should be allowed, right? I know (and have worked for) several other companies who manage the content of their Wikipedia article (check out 'George Affleck entrepreneur' and 'Curve Communications' as specific examples) and theirs doesn't get them in trouble. Also, the Vision critical page does explain how it's notable - they developed a piece of software that is the most used community panel platform in the world. I think that's noteworthy.

So what's my next step here? Wait for my content to be deleted, then create a fake profile that doesn't appear to have a conflict of interest and repost? Or just be honest and admit that I'm close to the subject but that the content I've supplied is neutral? Advice is welcome - repeated accusations are getting tiresome, Wuhwuzdat. You can tell I'm new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstinhepburn (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your content has been reviewed by an administrator and is no longer up for Speedy Deletion. Right now, you can only really sit and wait for somebody to edit it and remove any possible COI from it. A COI is brought up simply because you're connected to the subject in some way - it doesn't matter if it's written from a neutral point of view or not, there's still the inherent possibility of a COI. So for now, sit tight and somebody should look over and edit the articles soon. julianmh (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for your help with this!! :)

Kirstinhepburn (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy Hayes Q

Hi Demize - I'm the one who submitted the Andy Hayes piece. Thanks for your comment - I was wondering if there is other content I should put into the piece to better establish notable? I've got the mainstream media mentions, as well as the published book. Anything else? I'm new so just want to play by the rules :-) Thx. -PR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrocker22 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure if the article's notable - he does have a bit of mainstream coverage, but I can't actually find anything when I do a search. Like I said in my comment, he seems like he could be notable, but nothing I've seen actually definitely makes him notable or non-notable in my eyes. I'd recommend finding reviews of his works or articles about his works in mainstream media, and if there are enough of those referenced in the article, somebody should come along and approve it. I'm glad to help though, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! dmz 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice to 'meet' you. :-) Thanks for replying, - I did include links in the REF section with all of the interviews in CNN/Wall Street/etc, should I have made those links in the text instead? ~~ PR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrocker22 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw those, but as they're articles he worked on, they aren't really reliable sources, although that they have been published establishes some notoriety. Also, when signing posts on talk pages use ~~~~ - it will automatically make a signature for you and timestamp it. If you wish to customize your signature (like mine is), you can do so under Your Preferences. dmz 14:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No actually he was just the featured expert, he was just quoted in those newspapers. Testing fancy new signature... :-) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrocker22 (talk • contribs)

Go get the life