User talk:1745A

Speedy deletion declined: Jonathan Self

Hello 1745A. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jonathan Self, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for us to know that you are Mr. Self, or that you represent him. If you no longer wish to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, please read WP:Biographies of living persons, particularly the section titled "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease deleting material without any explanation. Gillyweed (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jonathan Self. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:JonathanSelf.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JonathanSelf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 1745A. You have new messages at File talk:JonathanSelf.jpg.
Message added 12:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Jonathan Self shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dl2000 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1745A. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jonathan Self, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more recent information

If Self has an official website, we can include a link to that.

If his website says that he is currently single and living in Malta, we can include that content in the article as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - will pass on a link to a website with the requested information.

As I am thinking about it [1] is problematic in that it is using primary source documents of the pp and decree. Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources. and does he really want them in the public sphere? Are there any columns that he has published recently where the byline indicates that he lives in Malta etc.? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we can do is if Self can identify via the WP:OTRS process and request that the article be taken down, I will start a formal request for deletion based on the criteria of a marginally notable figure requesting deletion. WP:AFD. Note that there are subjects with far less coverage in reliable sources that have been deemed notable and so it is not a guarantee. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]