User talk:Awfief

Thanx Paul, I have updated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awfief with some basic information. Awfief (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheeri, please fill in your user page. Your user page is important because it gives other Wikipedians a place to go to discover what you want to say about yourself. This user talk page gives other community members a place to ask you questions. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheeri Cabral
Oh dear, it looks like you haven't followed the guidance on Conflict of interest. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged and someone should have told you this before. There are lots of things wrong with the article: some of it is in list form and reads like a CV. There are references to blogs and even a link to iTunes. It ought really to be moved to draft space for improvement, but in any case you shouldn't really be working on it at all. Deb (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please take any references to your professional life and qualifications off your user page - otherwise that will be deleted as self-promotion. Deb (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for it that the article wasn't created by you, but it was created by an anon contributor on the very first day that you first edited it, thus it's hard to accept that you weren't aware of what was going on. I'm going to move the article to draft so it can be properly reviewed, as I feel the notability aspect has not been properly considered either.Deb (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but it seems like all the contributors who picked up on this before were inexperienced/occasional editors, so it hasn't been handled as it should have been. For example, User:Ginsengbomb (who has only edited for one day in the past four years) and User:Lpgeffen (who has made only 4000 edits in 13 years) overruled other contributors like User:JeremyCole (who was even less experienced and gave way). When an article has been created by someone with a conflict of interest (your boss) and added to by people who also had a COI, it needs to be squeaky clean in terms of promotional content and notability. The options, from my point of view, are to nominate it for deletion or move it to draft (as I've done) so that you can improve it and try to get it through an independent review. The upside of nominating for deletion is that it might be kept; the downside is that, once deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, it would be much more difficult to get it restored. Deb (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. You are of course free to approach other users to try to get help with improving the draft. Deb (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Anyone can call themselves a "Veteran Editor", and no doubt they were trying to help, but it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Confusing for a newcomer though. Deb (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very strange point of argument to observe that my lack of contributions in the last 4 years render my observations from 10 years ago -- when I was an extremely active editor -- somehow the product of an "inexperienced/occasional editor" who didn't handle this "as it should have been." I suspect I'm reading way more snark than was intended into this, ha! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)