User talk:KellieFlan

Your message at Requests for feedback
Another reply to second RFF: Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_31  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob Eastman
I will do. Am about to break off now, having been online for a while today my eyes are quite tired. I glanced over it, very briefly and blurry, looks like it should be okay - but I'll have a closer look through the references, probably sometime tomorrow, and make sure they're relevant, notable, etc, as well as check for copy-edit needs. Will get back to you once I've done that, and will remove any of the top banners that don't apply. Oh, and please call me Marcus.. leave 'sir' for the bank manager. ;) Using my talk page is also fine for any messages.

Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus, cheers! KellieFlan (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked over the article, in relation to the three tags up top.
 * Orphan - checked page links, but the article is still an orphaned one.
 * I have gone though the references, and considered bias and the citations tags - generally the article is very business-like in tone, referring to his commercial interests and investments - there appears to be very little about the man himself from an objective biographical point of view. It is more like a portfolio of his success - though I wouldn't call it "biased" in terms of using words like "successful", "enterprising", etc - I would say it does lean more towards indulging him as a successful businessman, and does little in the way of accounting for his notability in terms of public recognition, coverage, media reports. A lot of the references are business orientated, some trivial or rather routine coverage of his businesses - many appear self-published, especially those with "eastman" in the url, presenting conflict of interest issues, which is probably what caused the "bias" tag to be placed, rather than the tone of the article itself - unfortunately the editor who tagged it did not give specifics. There is a short convo in the article talk page, which might explain it - dated Dec 2009, same as the tags - though I doubt the editor will recollect it this far on.
 * I think in conclusion, that if I were to remove the tags, the decision would be challenged and it would either be back at square one, or worse, tagged for deletion because notability is still questionable after 21 months. Perhaps you might be able to find some fresher, third party, independent reliable sources, that were not written back in 2009/10 which would help matters, as it seems that previous contributors seem to have given up the attempt. I'm not sure what to recommend, besides a more biographical rewrite of the whole article, structured more to explore his life and career, than his business opportunities and investments. There is nothing in wiki policies that prevents you from taking a stale article and "rebooting" it, as such - as opposed to trying to restructure the existing text without offending previous editors - I can see from the history that you have attempted to reword things in terms of creating a NPOV - but it is more the context of the content that I would question - and the lack of the right type of content to call it a biography. In this case, I don't think anyone would have room to complain if you took that course of action, assuming you could find the right type of references needed for a biog of him.

I hope that makes sense - probably not what you expected to hear, but I am looking at it from a totally outside view - never heard of the man, so I have no reason to mis-judge him, and I know from your previous article that you are not inclined to introduce non-neutral material. I think in this case, it's just an article that didn't get a good start and needs some TLC before it is acceptable on all levels.

Regards,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 20:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcus, I understand the issues completely and if there are more recent and credible citations, they'll be included. Until then, thank you for your time and consideration - I look forward to our next encounter.KellieFlan (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Articles for creation/Macroaxis. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Colm Howard-Lloyd for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Colm Howard-Lloyd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Colm Howard-Lloyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
There are about 140,000 editors of which 1% (1400) are administrators ... more experienced editors. I don't think you been treated badly. Wikipedia is BIG and needs some rules; reliable sourcing WP:RS is one of them.

Ariconte (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Macroaxis


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Macroaxis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. j⚛e deckertalk 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Note
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)