Talk:Samata (fashion entrepreneur)/Archives/2023/July

Edit request
(copied from User_talk:PoetAudio) Altamel (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I am the subject of this page. For the past 6-7 years this Wikipedia page has been set up about me that I have not edited or annotated myself. It continues to have a citation saying that it is being managed by someone close to the source stuck at the top. It is really frustrating and inaccurate. I have asked for this page to be removed or to be told how it can be cleaned and have finally been pointed towards this page. It is live, giving the impression that I or 'my team' are editing it, and it doesn't look like anyone can do anything about that or take it down.

The message I refer to states:

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

As already mentioned, I did not create this page and nor is anyone close to me editing it. If the page stays, can the misleading banner be removed as no one 'close to me' has knowledge of editing this page. In fact, is there a way to find out who the source is? Who is allowed to add to these pages? Can the 'rules' be explained? It is hard seeing information about yourself that is inaccurate (see below) without being 'allowed' to correct it.

As a fact check, I am not a fashion designer (and have not been for some time), I am an entrepreneur working across fashion and media. I understand the errors on this page might not be anyones fault. It is just challenging as on principle, subjects can have no contribution to these pages - even when content about them is inaccurate.

I appreciate your kind response. PoetAudio (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi PoetAudio, and welcome to Wikipedia. Can you point us to which article this message concerns? There is not enough information provided in your post to tell which article you are referring to. Best, Altamel (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm leaving a few links to pages you may find useful: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Help available for editors with conflicts of interest, Biographies of living persons/Help, and Contact us/Article subjects. However, like said, we can only help you if you tell us which article you want editing.  Seagull123  Φ  19:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello I hope I am responding correctly!

The page is this one: Samata (fashion designer)

Does that help? PoetAudio (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging and . TSventon (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi PoetAudio. Thank you, that does help. Now I know what page you are talking about. In response to the points you raised:
 * I have changed your description in the article from "fashion designer" to "fashion entrepreneur."
 * The general rule is that editors with a conflict of interest for a particular topic are strongly discouraged from editing articles about that topic. This means people shouldn't edit articles about themselves, nor should paid PR representatives edit articles about their clients. Editors with a conflict should also disclose that conflict. You did the right thing by declaring your conflict and asking for help rather than editing the article directly.
 * If there are other errors in the article, you may raise them on Talk:Samata (fashion entrepreneur) and tag them with  as you did here. If the error is very serious and you do not receive a response, you may raise it at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Keep in mind, however, that an article may be out-of-date, but that is not necessarily an error. If the article claims a fact, and that fact is no longer true, that is an error. But if the article makes a claim about that past, which is still true, but out-of-date, there may be reasons for keeping that claim in the article. Similarly, omissions from an article are not necessarily considered errors.
 * The banner was placed on the article because an editor suspected that somebody with a connection (personal, financial, or professional) to Samata was editing the article. Because editing on Wikipedia is anonymous, we have no means to prove that an editor actually has a connection. Instead, we look for context clues. If an article uses a lot of PR-speak, or looks like a press release, or puts its subject in a strongly positive light, that may be a sign it has been edited by somebody with a conflict of interest. These banners typically stay until the promotional language is removed. Rayman60 was the editor who placed the banner. You might want to speak with them about what improvements they would like to see before the banner is removed.
 * Looking at the article Samata, I do see some elements that are reminiscent of a press release. There's too much name-dropping, for instance. I'm not saying that you, personally, must have been responsible. But the article does have problems with not maintaining a neutral point of view. Is it possible that somebody has edited the article on your behalf? For instance, do you have a PR team, and might they have hired a freelancer to edit the page?
 * I hope this helps answer your questions. If you have further inquiries, please post them at Talk:Samata (fashion entrepreneur). That gives other editors monitoring the article a chance to respond, and keeps a record of your concerns in the appropriate place. Best, Altamel (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:PoetAudio) TSventon (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for your greatly informative response! I don't have a PR. I have also looked at other articles and many reference people associated with the person but perhaps there is a way it is being done? I don't know. I have never had a PR or hired a freelancer to edit the page. It might be someone who has written about me? A journalist or a blogger? But definitely not me, and the banner at the top implies they are associated with me which is frustrating. Can anything be done? I also have no issue removing the page at all too? Can I ask for that to happen? Or who can remove the content that feels like it is PR talk? I would love some honest help as having this entry here is really an ongoing frustration for me personally? You have been so helpful - thank you! PoetAudio (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Also I have no idea how to use this platform and sending these messages has been quite hard for me to understand. How to I message Rayman60? Thank you! PoetAudio (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@PoetAudio the banner was probably put on the article because several accounts have mainly or only contributed to the article, which means they "appear to have a close connection with its subject", even if they are actually not connected. They include the following:

If you want to message Rayman60, you have already notified them by copying their username in double square brackets and signing your post. They also have a talk page User talk:Rayman60, but they seem to be inactive at the moment as they last edited in July.

If you want an editor to remove promotional content and the banner from the article, I would be happy to request help at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

It is possible to request deletion of the article if the subject is relatively unknown: see Biographies of living persons. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you all so much for trying to help me resolve this! I didn't know so many people contributed to the article but surely that would prove it' snot my team? If it were me it would be one user or two surely?! Either way, if you could help me request removal of banner and remove anything you feel makes it look like a PR article I would greatly appreciate it? Very grateful for the help! PoetAudio (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @PoetAudio I have asked for help at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. TSventon (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I am the subject of the page and have sought help with this - instead of it getting the page cleaned up and the banner removed, another banner has been added saying 'This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (November 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)'. This further antagonises me as the subject, as my first complaint was that I did not write this and have no close connection to the 4 or 5 people who did - I am still trying to find out who they are but can only be provided with a username? Can anyone help with either getting these, now two, banners removed or help me seek removal of this page as I never requested to be a subject on Wikpedia anyway?. Thank you! PoetAudio (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @PoetAudio, Wikipedia is edited by volunteers so they don't always do what you (or I) want them to. I am sorry if that is frustrating or antagonising. Also Wikipedia does not require editors to register their real names and has to safeguard private information so it is unlikely to be possible to find the real names of former editors.


 * I have had a look at the sources of the article and don't think that they meet the General notability guideline, which is "If a topic has received in  that are, it is  to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
 * I think the quickest answer to your request would be to nominate the article for deletion, which involves a one week discussion. Alternatively if you could identify three independent sources which have covered you in depth it would be possible to improve the article. TSventon (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Any of these??


 * https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/red-carpet-green-dress-samata-130411091.html
 * https://thevendeur.co.uk/10-questions-for-samata-pattinson/
 * https://wwd.com/business-news/business-features/forum-red-carpet-green-dress-samata-pattinson-explains-how-small-tweaks-can-make-a-huge-difference-1234592087/

Thank you for trying to help? If that fails I will seek deletion. PoetAudio (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * All three are interviews, which are debated as evidence of Wikipedia notability (discussed in Interviews). I and three other editors have edited the article for promotional material, so it is improving. The second banner has now been removed as it essentially duplicated the first one. TSventon (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it. This is all I have - if that is not adequate I will seek deletion:
 * https://www.bloomsbury.com/author/samata
 * https://wordpress.globalfashionagenda.com/speaker/samata-pattinson/
 * https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7920480/

PoetAudio (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @PoetAudio, the first two are not independent (the first is your publisher, the second is an event you are speaking at) and IMDB is not in depth (only one sentence) and also not reliable as it is mostly crowd sourced. Incidentally sources don't have to be recent, on line or in English (but on line English sources are easier to check). TSventon (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it - can I ask what kind of content would be relevant? 81.111.29.20 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @PoetAudio, If I have understood your question, relevant content for notability is:


 * (often explained as at least 2 paragraphs)
 * in {Help:Your first article explains "reliable; that is, they must be sources that exercise some form of editorial control and have some reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Print sources (and web-based versions of those sources) tend to be the most reliable, though some web-only sources may also be reliable. Examples might include (but are not limited to) books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, websites of any of the above, and other websites that meet the same requirements as a reputable print-based source.


 * In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable. These include (but are not limited to) books published by vanity presses, self-published 'zines', blogs, web forums, Usenet discussions, personal social media, fan sites, vanity websites that permit the creation of self-promotional articles, and other similar venues. If anyone at all can post information without anyone else checking that information, it is probably not reliable."}


 * that are (Examples:News media, popular or scholarly book are independent; Person, family members, friends, employer, employees are non-independent.) TSventon (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)