User talk:Erin Dearlove
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Erin Dearlove! I noticed your contributions to Elmira Bayrasli and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Tacyarg (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]
Hello Erin Dearlove. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Centre for Sight, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Erin Dearlove. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Erin Dearlove|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. I note that you made and immediately blanked a declaration of being paid, before creating the article. This is insufficient to satisfy our requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you. I'm new to this and have gone wrong somewhere. Shall I delete the page and start again do you think? Erin Dearlove (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for this. I thought I had completed the disclosure at the top so I'm not sure what happened. How do I go back and add it in? Erin Dearlove (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't mean to reply twice Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was confused by the fact that it was on my page so accidentally deleted it but have corrected this now. Thank you for telling me. Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit Centre for Sight directly, but request edits on the article's Talk page. You can use the edit request wizard to do this. Tacyarg (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry! Will do this from now on. I didn't realise. Erin Dearlove (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there. Am I okay to add sources or does this also count as edits? I've already left a note in the talk page suggesting some third party sources. Many thanks Erin Dearlove (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit Centre for Sight directly, but request edits on the article's Talk page. You can use the edit request wizard to do this. Tacyarg (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Reply to email
[edit]Hi, and thanks for the email. A version of the Centre for Sight article has indeed been deleted, but that was seven years ago as the outcome of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Sight. I haven't deleted, or even edited, the current article. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- My mistake! Thank you Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there. Am I okay to add sources or does this also count as edits? I've already left a note in the talk page suggesting some third party sources. Many thanks Erin Dearlove (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't mean to send that to you! Hopeless at Wiki right now but learning Erin Dearlove (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Centre for Sight
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Centre for Sight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Sight. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. Onel5969 TT me 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't understand why my page has been flagged under G4 - please can @BusterDexplain why you think it is? Thanks. Erin Dearlove (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- In my speedy deletion, I acted in a purely administrative manner. User:Onel5969 was the reviewer, and IMHO they correctly tagged the page for deletion as WP:G4, which means the article has previously been deleted in a formal process (linked in Onel5969's notice above). I did check the sources on the new page, and much like the reviewer, I was not much impressed. Wikipedia is neither Yelp nor the yellow pages, and it would be an unsual vision center indeed which possessed sufficient independent reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject in order to pass WP:NCORP on English Wikipedia. Why would this particular care center be any more notable than any other in London, Surrey, or Sussex? The sources presented don't tell us. So it's a successful business; good for them. But while the doctor's apparently undisclosed paid article (Sheraz Daya) has gone under the radar until just this moment, the clinic's paid article HAS previously been deleted in a formal process, and IMHO the new draft didn't provide any sourcing better than the old draft did. Paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia so long as it's properly disclosed, but not every paying client is necessarily considered notable. I'm willing to restore the article on request so long as you (and by extension your client) understand that Onel5969 or I will immediately nominate it for deletion. FYI, if I'd come across article myself, I might well have tagged it as WP:A7 and some other admin might have deleted it under THAT criteria. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I put more sources in the talk page if you look but I am unable to add them due to my third party interest. I have explained why the centre is notable (it's often the first to bring eye treatments to the UK such as LASIK laser eye surgery) and also I had nothing to do with Sheraz Daya's page and do not know who created it. I've put the page deletion for review as I feel the page just needs some sources adding rather than deletion and have had another wikipedia editor agree with me. Erin Dearlove (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- In my speedy deletion, I acted in a purely administrative manner. User:Onel5969 was the reviewer, and IMHO they correctly tagged the page for deletion as WP:G4, which means the article has previously been deleted in a formal process (linked in Onel5969's notice above). I did check the sources on the new page, and much like the reviewer, I was not much impressed. Wikipedia is neither Yelp nor the yellow pages, and it would be an unsual vision center indeed which possessed sufficient independent reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject in order to pass WP:NCORP on English Wikipedia. Why would this particular care center be any more notable than any other in London, Surrey, or Sussex? The sources presented don't tell us. So it's a successful business; good for them. But while the doctor's apparently undisclosed paid article (Sheraz Daya) has gone under the radar until just this moment, the clinic's paid article HAS previously been deleted in a formal process, and IMHO the new draft didn't provide any sourcing better than the old draft did. Paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia so long as it's properly disclosed, but not every paying client is necessarily considered notable. I'm willing to restore the article on request so long as you (and by extension your client) understand that Onel5969 or I will immediately nominate it for deletion. FYI, if I'd come across article myself, I might well have tagged it as WP:A7 and some other admin might have deleted it under THAT criteria. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of Centre for Sight for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Sight (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 until the discussion has finished.