User talk:Dawesi

A tag has been placed on Christopher Dawes - Australian, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

I realize that the article does not appear to be complete yet, but the data in the infobox describes the subject as a gaffer for films (i.e. electrician) -- it's difficult for someone to qualify as biographically notable in that occupation. Metropolitan90 06:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

June 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft:Martyn Iles
I have just deleted this article. You did not disclose that you created on behalf of the Australian Christian Lobby's communications officer, and the content was grossly non-neutral. Please see WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:NPOV. You will be blocked from editing if this ever occurs again. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

the WP:COI seems to be with Nick-D here. - this needs a formal review

NONE of WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:NPOV are valid. (how are you a moderator?) NONE. #modfail

I did not create the article on behalf of the ACL. I created it as I have started to watch a podcast he puts out and looked on Wikipedia for his profile (as one of the most prominant political activists in AU of the last 5-10 years in the media, yet somehow 'personal politics' seems to be geting the best of the moderators. I am not a member of, or an employee of or a part of ACL. I contacted ACL for a profile, in which they DID NOT provide me with anything. THEN ACL reached out after I pointed out that their CEO had his profile deleted and I had created a draf, and I hear they reached out to you to hurry up the draft, which I ALSO found disappointing.

You're using PERSONAL OPPINION rather than fact to decide on pages of people, unlike me or you who are somebody in this country. You need to moderator status checked mate. Please let me know where I can appeal this and have your status changed? This is a joke, a PERSONAL no doubt joke as this is the SECOND time you PERSONALLY objected to factual articles.

please reinstate the article and explain why you should continue as a moderator as per your bad judgement here?


 * This is nothing to do with personal opinion. Wikipedia has articles on total shitbags such as Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, but it does require them to be written in neutral language, and supported by references. Maproom (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry been focused on other things:

Disagree, the article was DELETED without comment, nor feedback other than citing 'so called' reasons that made ZERO sense to about 50 people I know that have posted on wikipedia. The ONLY conclusion by all those I asked was personal bias trying to play to a grey area that 1) was not there 2) if it was there was not explained in a way that is useful, nor allowed to edit and repost - pointing back to point 1). I was actually looking for this article on wikipedia as I wanted to learn about the man, and found the article published on other wikipedia published sites, but weirdly not on wikipedia.

If the content needed editing due to 'neautral language' why was it IMMEDIATELY deleted. I was about to write a series of articles on wikipedia for several other notable people, however I not only have lost trust and hope that wikipedia is factual and reprepsenting actual significant people (as record companies for instance can publish unknown acts and be allowed, but one of the most prominent lobbiest groups in the last decade's leader is not allowed? This is why i assumed personal oppinion (left-facing public servant) rather than editorial oversight had anything to do with the WAY in which the article was handled.

To then ACUSE me of colluding, when I reached out AFTER I wrote the article to find someone to talk to to make sure the article was accurate (as I had no idea who wrote the version I found on other wikis) was the reason I reached out to them. I would assume that anyone writing for a community project such as this would and SHOULD confirm a draft before final publishing. To do otherwise makes Wikipedia a first class joke, and an unreliable source full stop as verification CAN NOT be sought.

I'm just really confused at the BRUTALITY of the takedown. I've talked to several people (including two layers, and a uni professor) about this and all agree this is personal the takedown as the article (to our knowledge) meets all requirements, well when you take personal (gross) bias out of how you judge that, yet 'some' articles the mod post have less evidence yet are allowed?

The big issue is there was ZERO feedback, and ZERO tolerance by the mod for me. I posted in good faith, the mod deleted NOT in good faith, nor gave me the ability to add more context or whatever to have this profile put on wikipedia, where honestly it belongs. I don't know Martyn, nor have ever met him, but I have watched some of his videos which led me to find out more about his background; which is missing on wikipedia, but shouldn't be. It is however archived on other sites which continue to show the previous article (which I recited links and added other cites as I could not read some of the original cites due to paywalls.

I spent a lot of time reading wikipedia guidelines and putting this together, and so I should be 'upset' and 'disgusted' in how the mod deleted without feedback the article. The process left a very bad taste in my mouth and led to thousands of people hearing my personal upset about how this pedia is a farce. If a newish writer can't get constructive feedback without a 'bigoted' instant shutdown - which is CLEARLY overkill, what point is there in writing anything else about people and organisations that MATTER to people in this timeframe. Are we trying to censor? isn't that the opposite of what this whole site is about?

The question still stands? How do I publish this article? I have no association with ACL, nor the publicity guy other than the initial talks, and haven't talked to them since I contacted them to say I published the article, which had weirdly been deleted. Alex (or whatever his name was) then talked to me and said it had been deleted as they had published it. I thought as a publisher of several mainstream Christian websites since 1997-now that I would not have that conflict of interest. He is prominent in our and the LGBTQ community (they dont like him, but he is prominent all the same), so should have been as the ACL boss been there from the day he arrived in the job. Now I know record companies, and tv shows have this direct conflict of interest on wikipedia, yet I'm removed and I get a black mark - what an outrageous way to treat someone based on an 'assumption' which was not only wrong, but carried NO APPOLOGY when they were called out. This is why the mod should also have a black mark or even be demoted in their role - they are not following the rules, but applying a 'biased' set of the rules.

My hands are still in the air to what the issues are with this article, and so that is why I'm asking people outside the bias to help. Why can't this be published? It's simple question. The original mod's reasons are not accurate to anyone I talk to including seasonsed wiki writers. Can someone please review and give me feedback to how I can publish this so I can know what to do in future?

No-one understands the wiki reason for delete, only the personal reason - hense my complaint and frustration with wikipedia, who has failed me.

dawesi (talk) 11:48 PM, 08 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December 8. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Sandstein  07:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)