User talk:AdVal

Welcome!

Hello, AdVal, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tom Holland (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable child actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Autumnalmonk. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Tom_Holland_(actor), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 13:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion on my talk page it has become clear that there was quite a mix up on the Tom_Holland_(actor) page involving the inappropriate material, with editors inserting the material when they thought they were removing it. On coming across the situation, I simply issued cautions/warnings to all parties who I saw from the page history had inserted the inappropriate material. If your insertion of the material was the result of the mix-up and it was not your intention to do so then please disregard the caution I posted here and accept my apologies. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 23:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ~Autumnal Monk~, for your generous reply! AdVal (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holland writes speeches for notable celebrities working on the corporate circuit and his clients include sports stars and CEO’s of multinational companies.

Holland works extensively as an after-dinner speaker on engagements throughout the world.^[1] As an awards host and cabaret artiste, his show reels are available on web site.

For a start, there is no evidence that any of this is true, apart from the "show reels", which you (I think) accept are promotional films and therefore have no place in an encyclopedia article. To return to the first sentence, where you mention "notable" celebrities. Aren't all celebrities notable? What does that first sentence imply? It is clearly intended to suggest that Holland is a top-notch speech-writer, but this is unsupported. Surely his notability lies in his own public image, not in the fact that he might write speeches for other people; the sentence is more or less advertising him as a speech-writer. The fact that he works extensively as an after-dinner speaker is likewise irrelevant; most famous people do. To include it here is another advertisement for his unevidenced abilities. If you have a conflict of interest, your reasons for caring about its removal are obvious; if you haven't, I can't see what your objections to the removal of this section is. If you want it put back, please provide some evidence that Holland's apparently unremarkable activities in this sphere are noteworthy - for example, has he won an award of some kind as an after-dinner speaker? I leave it to you. Deb (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, thanks for your prompt reply. Let me reply point after point:

1. No, I am not related to Holland and never met him in person but I liked him as a TV-personality and as a writer (and as a dad of a talented actor), so I contributed to his Wiki article.

2. "notable" celebrities: I am not a native speaker, so you probably know better. But I believe that it's a common place that celebrities can be very different: some of them (all those from reality shows, etc. - famous for being famous) have to be discernible from genuine celebrities who have real achivements. So IMO "noble celebrities" look legitimate to me (and google confirms that).

3. Holland is a reasonably known person (that's why there is a Wiki article about him), and as such he needs to be comprehensively (encyclopedically) characterised in terms of his professional activities. To state that he "writes speeches" and "works extensively as an after-dinner speaker on engagements" IMO does not imply "advertising". It's just the description of what he does for a living along with his other activities. The "celebrity" delivering the speech does not announce that it was written for him by a certain professional writer; "after dinner speeches" delivered by the writer himself are not normally reviewed by critics and there are no awards for that - that's just the nature of these professional activitities. This doesn't mean that these activities are "unremarkable" or should not be mentioned in Wiki articles at all as you seemed to imply. In addition, if a subject is an actor, you mention all or most his roles - not only those that did receive awards. Why then do you require "an award of some kind as an after-dinner speaker"? There are some concrete evidences about his work as "awards host" but they tend to be, for instance, in the form of photos in published issues of magazines (e.g. presenting "PC Pro awards") or corporate outlets not normally available for the references in public domain.

4. More about "evidence". If one excludes professional agencies' presentations (there is a lot of that sort of stuff for Holland in Internet - including fees that he commands, and they are not that small, so he must be successful), then it remains to rely upon his own evidence. He has written a lot about different episodes of these activities both in his blog and in his recent autobiographical book (let me remind that he is a professional writer and journalist). Are these legitimate evidences? In my view - yes.

To conclude: On the basis of the presented arguments I think one can restore the removed stuff - but in a more neutral and concise form. For instance: Holland writes speeches for celebrities working on the corporate circuit and his clients include sports stars and CEO’s of multinational companies. He works as an after-dinner speaker and awards host on engagements throughout the world. The reference can be to his blog and his book. What do you think?

AdVal (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little better, but you would need to find an independent reference for his clients being sports stars and CEOs of multinational companies, if you really feel that's even worth mentioning. Deb (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdVal. You have new messages at Aaron Booth's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aaron Booth (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdVal. You have new messages at Aaron Booth's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aaron Booth (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdVal. You have new messages at Aaron Booth's talk page.
Message added 01:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aaron Booth (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdVal. You have new messages at Aaron Booth's talk page.
Message added 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aaron Booth (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdVal. You have new messages at Lady Lotus's talk page.
Message added 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lady Lotus (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:Dr. Blofeld: "being in my opinion incompetent in the subject of actors and showbiz in general." Considering I write about these subjects, plural, for a living, and have done so for more than 30 years in magazines, newspaper and even books by real publishers, I find your opinion uninformed. And for the last time, your personal attacks will not be tolerated, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's you who started the personal attack (completely unprovoked - even if you are right regarding the article in question - and I don't think so - you mustn't personalise it) and continued with it all the way through. I also believe that your with Lady Lotus coordinated actions (with her astonishing gratitude after your hatchet job "Thanks so much love! :)") show your personal interest and bias, are unacceptable and would be subject to disciplinary action in any real office. In terms of essence of the quarrel, the pattern of our exchange's been strange: I ask you to explain your concrete actions (with all the relevant details), and I provide arguments and examples of other prominent articles containing the stuff you think inappropriate for Holland; instead addressing the issues, you reply that in past I argued with other editors, write too long, do not understand policies and "partisan" (i.e. calling names). How then I can judge your "competence"?

I understand that you are in your environment with its specific ethics, and I am not, and you think, and probably rightly, that you are untouchable - at least by people like me. Your threats are not relevant: I am not going to contribute to WP anymore, and this comment is probably my last instance of writing. Hopefully, other editors will deal in due course with Holland paper. The only option I should consider is whether to launch a formal complaint against your unethical and intimidating behaviour. But it's probably not worth it: I have no time, and in addition I don't believe in justice here. AdVal (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]