I have placed a tag on the article Edward Olive, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Edward Olive is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Edward Olive. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not just remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. -- SYCTHOS ^talk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Edward Olive has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/user/edwardolive#p/u (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! -- XLinkBot ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Philip Klapwijk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud ( talk) 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Olive may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Promotionalism

As explained below, I've look at 2 of your articles. First, I call your attention to our general rules about promotionalism .

A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't include material that would better belong in an advertisement or a web page, such as a detailed list of minor roles or minor products or TV interview or web contributions, or of executives or branch offices.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients or supporters --that sort of content is considered promotional.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. . And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. And remember that if you are notable, other people will know it, and write the article. That you have to write it yourself tends to show just the opposite.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for the presence of sources that show notability. The best way of rewriting is to use the WP:Article Wizard, which will guide you towards an acceptable article if one is possible.

For further information see our general guides to writing articles, WP:PLAIN and WP:FIRST; see also our list of the things we don't do here, WP:NOT, and our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

And , of course, remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material) , the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)

Philip Klapwijk

As reviewing administrator, I decided not to delete it. I'm not certain it shows notability , but it's good enough to pass speedy. What I did with it is to remove material that is totally inappropriate and will be viewed as promotional--such as links to every article we have about the subject. Excessive internal links, and unnecessary see alsos for what is already prominent in the article--always look promotional. We don't normally make External links to web postings and the like, though we can mention formally published articles in the article itself. Nor do we make external links to lists of articles that mention him in sources like Bloomberg. What you're trying to do is claim notability based on his being an analyst who is frequently quoted--it's best to give key refs in the main text, but there are quite a number of such refs, especially from Bloomberg, so I didn't remove the links. It's my experience that it's relatively difficult to sustain an article based on notability of this sort--most AfDs where that's the issue have been closed as delete. This is more extensive than many such, and I do not know what would happen-- AfD can be quite unpredictable. It helps to have a ref to some 3rd party source which says explicitly he's a leading expert, and says it in a substantial way, not just in passing. The article has enough of a chance that it's worth working on to make sure there's nothing people would object to. If it get's a little better I probably will not nominate it for AfD myself, but of course anyone else can.

Edward Olive

See my note above about what should not be included. There are two possible bases for notability : one is the acting, the other is the photography. For the acting, notability is normally considered to consist of major roles in notable films--I need to check the films listed there. For the photography, the rules are at WP:CREATIVE--we normally need major prizes (& runner-up doesn't count) , or work that is part of the permanent collection of major museums (advertising work can count if it has been written about--, or references such as reviews providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I read the articles/interviews--they might be usable for notability. It helps very much to have a relatively modest article, especially if it's an autobiography--if I took the present one to AfD, the odds are that it would be deleted. Perhaps you should do the first trimming. Let me know on my talk p. when I should look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Two different men seem to be logging on with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.16 ( talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Like 92.26.0.16, I think this is a sock-puppet of Olive and Klapwijk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.201.140 ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Edwardolive. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Olive 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Olive (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Ploni ( talk) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Edwardolive requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The file File:Edward-Olive-British-actor-Madrid-Spain-photographer-fotografo-britanico-img390v22.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Edward Olive. No other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The file File:Edward-olive-fotógrafo-madrid-profesional-photographer-img171v22.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Edward Olive. No other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The file File:EdwardOlive-actor-1.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Edward Olive. No other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply