User talk:Iaindale

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Iaindale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Laurence Boyce 13:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Dale

Thanks for logging in Iain and for taking the time to check over the article about you. Of course, you are entitled to remove anything defamatory or just critical for the sake of it. Also note that I am not the TV left-wing comededian Mark Thomas, we just happen to share the same name. However, you should not be changing anything on the article that you happen to disagree with or feel puts you in an insufficiently good light - that is for other editors to do. I am reviewing the attack ads more carefully to see what Wikipedia should say about them, but I do think they meet WP criteria for including in these articles because they are notable (first attack ads in the UK) and at least one of their targets (Ken Livingstone) is very notable. Thanks again for joining Wikipedia! MarkThomas 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, here are the rules [1] "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." So there's nothing to stop you removing things 'users of the channel's website are invited to vote on choices including criticism that Livingstone supports "gay rights"', because that statement is an unsourced attack. It probably wouldn't, OTOH, be appropriate to remove for you to remove statements that are accurate and sourced (for instance the simple fact that 18DS produces attack ads), just because you feel they are given undue weight. (That's not to say other people won't remove the statements, nor that you can't comment on the Talk page aout your concerns, just that it's not desirable to shape the article in your own image). But don't be afraid to remove attacks on you if they aren't verified with a reliable source. Nssdfdsfds 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Iain Dale, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me why on earth a link to Specialist Speakers is not allowed? They are my speakers agency and book me for speaking engagements. Someone added them (not me) ages ago and they keep being deleted. This is not a spam link. They are part of what I do. Please reinstate this link (Iaindale (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Description of your role as blogger or radio journalist

Hi - I've replied to your query at my talk page as well. Yes, it's a fact, but the wording and context suggested puff-piece; to be fair, I was in a bit of a rush when I did that and it's always best to improve rather than delete - I will take another look at it today if poss. There's actually nothing to stop "you" (I am assuming you are the Iain Dale) editing your own article of course, so long as you make it clear what's going on. The main issue is how you are notable according to the rules. You appear to be primarily notable as a blogger and the LBC thing is recent. Introductory text for a living person is usually partly about why someone is notable - hence the other reason for my revert was that the article intro appeared to be implying that you are a "radio personality" when the weight of sourcing has you as a "blogger". Feel free to counter my argument. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made some corrections to your article Iain - please take a look and let me have any comments. I have tried to clarify the notability issue (eg, why you are famous) and modified various wordings - also it would be useful to know (a) how long ago you started Iain Dale's Diary, for historical interest and (b) how you see the status of the blog now - I am just reporting facts that material still appears there. The LBC Radio show is not perhaps hugely notable as yet compared to your legendary blogging stature, but it's now in the intro - if you want more on it, please make suggestions. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I accept your edit as to the facts of your appearances - I thought you'd been on the main QT on BBC1 as well, evidently my memory tricks me. I deleted your uncommented re-insertion of your blog URL - reasons are (1) this is already given in the infobox (2) it is not the title of the blog (3) it is clearly intended promotionally. Please add comments to your revisions and discuss at the talk page before re-insertion under WP:BRD. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Just in case the account becomes active again, any future edits that aren't minor shouldn't have the minor flag, which wasn't the case previously, cheers Widefox; talk 12:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]