User talk:Steveirons

December 2012

Hello, Steveirons. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —SMALL JIM 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, I am just trying to get it right, I tried to get a map up and it told me I couldn't do it, but the map would look excellent there to prove that the debate continues to the present day, if the lecturer with no support can put his ideas up in the name of the National Party, then the BloggerMe map must be able to be talked about, it has general recognition from an ex-Prime Minister, an ex-Opposition Leader, the Leader of a Political party, the head of new age Magazine, a Professor of a major University, and a number of key players, so its not just about me, it has a more generic place in the debate. I am sorry about the mess up, I got a warning about the number of references, and I misunderstood the warning, and didn't know what it was asking me to do, sorry about that, I saw your warning late, I didn't notice it, but will keep my eye out for that interaction. Thanks, again Steveirons (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I see you have removed it again, which means that you think that the lecturer is not "too close" but I am. I am not asking for his to be removed because i suppose it does provide something, but it is not properly explained, not supported by anyone, no references and no links, but could you please take a look at the http://www.bloggerme.com.au/supporters-thinkers you will see there that the appeal of this map is much broader that what is being proposed by the lecturer, an independent Editor saying that it is "admirable", ex-Prime Minister & Opposition Leader both welcoming it in the debate, Senator engaging in debate, Leader of a major political party saying it is "worthwhile", Professor saying it is "intriguing", Professional advocator saying "thank you, long overdue", and others. Please reconsider. This has got to be better that the National Party couple of notes with no links and no historical reference whatsoever. Cheers Steve Steveirons (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a topic that I know anything about, nor have an interest in - I'm just involved in ensuring that our policies and guidelines are complied with so that Wikipedia remains a useful and unbiased resource. Having read your comments, though, I do agree that the section about Bryan Pape's proposal is too long, even though it does have the advantage of an independent reliable source (at smh.com.au), so it may merit a brief mention - I'll consider this further.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, no independent reliable published sources have commented on your proposals (there are no independent Google hits for "FOWTOR" - your own website isn't good enough), hence my reliance on WP:FRINGE. If it's picked up by the press, then no doubt someone else will add details to the article.

Underlying all this is our Conflict of Interest guidance (described above), which strongly advises you not to edit articles on topics with which you are affiliated - see also WP:PROMOTION. Basically, you need to do your advertising elsewhere. Hope this helps. —SMALL JIM 11:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit arbitrary and nonsensical that a reference to an article by a reporter in the case of the Bryan Pape proposal is to be considered as an independent source but the direct letters from a range of independent sources including an editor and a number of quite diverse key political players cannot be accepted, because they are published on the website being referred to. Oh well, I'll just have to accept that you know that it is best for your readers to not know that the debate continues. I'll get back to you when there is some article in the SMH that I can refer you to. Steveirons (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just how Wikipedia works. The important principle is that at least one reliable source considered Pape's proposal to be something worth writing about: when the same thing happens to yours, we can treat it the same. Please feel free to drop a line on my talk page if/when such sources (preferably on the internet so I can access them) pick up on your proposal and I'd be happy to edit the article appropriately. —SMALL JIM 13:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; thanks Jim, I'll be in touch;; Steveirons (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Steveirons

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Steveirons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ruy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Steveirons (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I tried to delete it but it won't allow me to delete it. Do I just sit by and watch Rue carry out a speedy deletion. Sorry, I don't understand why or what I am supposed to do next.[reply]