User talk:Dr sign

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. - Ehheh (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chandler

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Daniel Chandler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Daniel Chandler. Doc^g 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Roman Jakobson, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

Please don't add book references to Wikipedia articles for the purpose of promoting a book. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Daniel Chandler

The article Daniel Chandler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very few reliable sources independent of the subject (many of the sources cited make no mention of Chandler). Current article is largely undue, primary sourced, cv-like, and problematic in tone.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chandler article

Hi Dr sign. As you know, I proposed Daniel Chandler for deletion. There are at least a few of us who have been considering nominating it for deletion (a more formal process that comes after proposing deletion is objected to be someone). Here's the thing, though: I think Chandler IS notable and merits an article. The one he currently has, though, is pretty poor by Wikipedia standards.

As you also know, from the looks of this talk page, Wikipedia feels rather strongly about conflict of interest editing. This applies if you are the subject of the article, a colleague, collaborator, student, teacher, publisher, or some other relation other than being familiar with his work.

I'm going to help to improve the article, and would like your help if you're willing, but I need for you to disclose your conflict of interest if you have one. If you have a COI, please do not edit the article directly, but please do edit the article talk page to suggest changes, provide references, and generally collaborate indirectly. Chandler works in a field I'm familiar with and I'm pretty sure I've seen his work around before, but I don't have a lot of first-hand experience so pointing me to reliable secondary sources that talk about his work would help me to turn it into a better article -- and one that won't be deleted. You can reply here on this page and I'll see your reply. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]