Talk:Tim Luckhurst

Conflict of interest

This article is clearly self-written, or written by someone close to the subject. It is non-POV and narcissistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.250.158 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above user's suspicion that this article has conflict of interest issues. I have removed many of this article's citations to the subject's writings which only serve to boost Luckhurst's profile. Links to commercial websites are not considered appropriate to Wikipedia, and I have removed those as well. User:Gutterbluid seems to have added much of this material to the article. This user's other edits also suggest a COI, as they also relate to Luckhurst. Philip Cross (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems most of the article should be deleted. This is wikipedia, not a place to post your own CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.145 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article appears to be being used as an online CV. Most of the recent edits by a single user appear to be adding non-notable details. This user appears to have a conflict.

I would push for a major tidy of this page, and consider whether its subject warrants this much minor detail on very insignificant topics.

Again- I am suggesting that the author appears to have a conflict of interest, and that this page should not be used as a CV. Comments welcome. PateraIncus (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

One wonders, on reflection, whether this page is not a candidate for deletion? the demands of re-editing the page to remove the frequent edition of non-significant information, as well as the need to rewrite large sections to comply with Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion, hardly seem justifiable given the very minor public presence of the page's subject. None of the individual achievements of the subject seem to merit such an extensive Wikipedia entry; professors of journalism at Kent University, erstwhile editors of The Scotsman, nor principals of Durham University colleges usually merit a Wikipedia page which is *this* contentious. If the page didn't already exist, would anyone bother to create it? happy to hear comments too. 123Tiradentes456 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I draw attention to the fact that in Sptember 2023 the entire section "Controversies" was deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Frakofile (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I note from the editing history that the same meaningful, accurate information is deleted or truncated. This disguises or changes the context of the page. If the same information is reposted by another Wiki editor it regularly happens again. The deleted or abbreviated information is material. It seems an ongoing attempt to portray the subject in the most favourable light possible. Frakofile (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we may have another sockpuppet self-editor here, namely FromulentDisco. It's only edited this article and all the edits appear favourable. This is getting silly. Suggest we revert all their edits? PateraIncus (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I draw attention to the fact the entire section "Controversies" has been deleted by FromulentDisco.On the false grounds it was "unrepresentative and irrelevant". The truth is all these controversies were documented in the national media. The appropriate source references were all properly disclosed in the Wiki article too. There are clear signs of persistent whitewashing of this individual's Wiki profile. No negative content remains at this point. Frakofile (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)