Talk:Gallifrey One

Why is putting an article about a convention and being factual about it a "conflict of interest"? All I did was list the convention and put up information about it. This information is freely given on the convention's website. What defines the conflict of interest here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonskye (talk • contribs) — Damonskye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In one edit adding Gallifrey One to a listing, you said, "Added our long-running (20 year) event". That "our" was a TARDIS-like flashing light and "vworp vworp", signalling a probable conflict of interest. Almost every one of your edits after April 2009 have been to add Gallifrey One to articles, to create and add to the article itself, etc. If you're a member of the G1 concom, you need to disclose your COI and follow the cautions suggested for any COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am a volunteer on the event, and did not intend any COI. More to the point, if you look at any science fiction convention entry on Wikipedia, you are bound to find information posted by "interested parties". (I highly doubt that NON-interested parties are going to post something about a science fiction convention.) Moreover, Wikipedia's entry on "List of Science Fiction Conventions" refused to post anything that did NOT have a specific entry of its own, which defeats the purpose of that list unless "interested parties" post entries like I did. So all I did was try to be as complete as possible based on the information at hand. What parts of the entry would you suggest be removed? Damonskye (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Phrases like "continued to thrive" are not exactly WP:NPOV. More to the point, we need some reliable sources (i.e., not G1's own website). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK but reliable sources for what exactly? Should the history section just be removed altogether? That IS the convention history, there won't be any other sources that I'm aware of. Damonskye (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources for the article, how does it pass muster as notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read Wikipedia's guidelines, and they DO permit people who have a tenuous relationship to the item or organization being listed as able to contribute to the material without it being considered a Conflict of Interest (as it says in the rules on Organizations.) To that end, I have added several references about this event that hopefully guarantees it falls under the rules of notability, since it has been covered by reputable press. Meanwhile, with all due respect, I do hope you are holding EVERY SINGLE other science fiction convention listed to the same standard as you seem to be with this one, considering how much I've edited it down to bare minimum. (You can find them under "List of Science Fiction Conventions".) Damonskye (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gallifrey One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210144517/http://www.wired.com:80/geekdad/2012/02/gallifreyone/ to http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/02/gallifreyone/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gallifrey One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316043725/http://www.wired.com:80/entertainment/hollywood/news/2008/02/dr_who to http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2008/02/dr_who

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)