Talk:Rolando Gomez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Embarking on re-write to conform with various policies

The article is filled with uncited information, editorial comments, unverifiable claims from reliable sources, etc... I'm going to try to improve and bring it within guidelines. At the moment, it's only source is a podcast of an interview with subject (who is also the primary author and editor of this article).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gomez wrote in his own wiki page that he was named one of the Military's top 5 photographers in 1994. I was able to find the press release for the DOD's "Photog of the year" for 1994. Here it is: [1]. It names the winner (not gomez). Makes no mention of a top five and couldn't find any such mention anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gomez wrote "He is credited with the discovery of a Penthouse Pet, Jana Adams (October 1986) and Playboy Playmate, Holley A. Dorrough (April 2006), plus six models for Playboy Special Editions." No citations for this that i could find. Also, Madison Avenue used to be filled with guys who claimed "I was the one who came up with 'I should have a V-8.' Claims of "discovering" this or that thing or person need some sort of citation from a reliable source.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with the rewrite. It still doesn't conform, as notability is not established, doesn't have a single reliable source, etc... but that's an argument for why this article shouldn't exist, and that's what AfD is for. As it stands now, stripped out a lot of the hyperbole, explained why claims for which there are no reliable sources can't be here in the edit summaries.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

COI Policy

I urge anyone editing this article to read WP:COI. From the begining of this article: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

"There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars." Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We might also want to reflect on civility and being nice to newbies. COI editors are actually welcome to edit but if they succumb to ownership issues or otherwise are disruptive they may be blocked. Given the rather dismal way the anons have been treated I think furthering the perception that they are only here to print falsehoods is unhelpful. Before the article was targeted, gutted, de-feathered, stubbified and pillaried it needed help but was certainly better than the present version. There were a few editors willing to work on this article but let's be generous with good faith and let's avoid any edit warring, it doesn't do this article or Wikipedia any good. -- Banjeboi 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)