Gryanwiik
Welcome!
editHello, Gryanwiik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Ryan Wiik, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Best practices for editors with close associations
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @C.Fred I understand and appreciate. Do I need to do anything further for the notice of deletion to be implemented? Gryanwiik (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may be better off to do nothing. I'm looking at the Ryan Wiik article, and I'm not convinced that he's a notable person, so I'm considering nominating it for deletion myself. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Please proceed Gryanwiik (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- And I did: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. It may be best for you to avoid the discussion, or at least refrain from casting a !vote. Best case, your !vote is discarded because of your conflict of interest. Worst case, your involvement taints the discussion. Notice also how I've framed it in terms of Wikipedia policy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw, and I very much appreciate your attention to this matter! Your objective view is spot on, so I will stay out of it. My aim was not to engage with the community, but rather get the attention of senior admins. Do not hesitate to ping me if anything needs clarification. Best Ryan Gryanwiik (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @C.Fred, I see the deletion page is attempting to find a consensus. As evidenced with the lack of verifiable sources, interviews or published biographical materials -- there isn't much for the community to opine on here, except what remains of this one-side attack page which is built around a single event. Gryanwiik (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- And I did: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. It may be best for you to avoid the discussion, or at least refrain from casting a !vote. Best case, your !vote is discarded because of your conflict of interest. Worst case, your involvement taints the discussion. Notice also how I've framed it in terms of Wikipedia policy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Please proceed Gryanwiik (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may be better off to do nothing. I'm looking at the Ryan Wiik article, and I'm not convinced that he's a notable person, so I'm considering nominating it for deletion myself. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Gryanwiik, I think it's best if you do not directly edit the article. Calling this edit "cleanup" is a bit euphemistic, in my opinion. C.Fred, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand @Drmies, and agree with you. However, this article has persisted to stay online for a long period without any objective review or cleanup. @C.Fred is familiar with the issues of the article and its proposed deletion. Gryanwiik (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies It is what an objective summary would look like in the context of what may be relevant or notable. If you choose to uphold the existing collection of biased edits, it serves merely as a libellous attack page, created by detractors during a time of litigation. And as regards to this being a "puff piece"... you can be assured that any neutral elements to the biography are long gone. Please give an example of edits that you feel are euphemistic -- Gryanwiik (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies The changes are complex enough that it's not easy to see what was removed, although it seems that the litigation was removed or recharacterized. That's concerning when it's done by a party to the suit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred @Drmies In your own words, what is the purpose of BLP articles on wikipedia? Everything in this article, starting from the sentence; "In September 2009, Wiik co-founded..." through to the end of the article is either factually incorrect, or written by highly biased users with an objective to slander my name. It is an extreme one-sided negative view, not neutral, from a short period of time where I was involved in litigation claims. All such claims, were shortly thereafter -- settled. Why I am as the only party in the multiple suits discussed, the only article that shall serve as summary of all claims? And when you consider that no one has attempted to include related subsequent events, it can hardly be argued that I am a notable person or public figure worthy of a wikipedia page. This page needs to be deleted. If I, in the future do be come notable in the eyes of the public, perhaps then there will be enough verifiable sources to write an acurate and comprehensive article from top to bottom. Gryanwiik (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the sources supporting that paragraph are in Norwegian; Drmies has placed a request at the Reliable sources noticeboard asking for help evaluating those sources. At this point, I'm waiting to see what comes in at that board. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred@Drmies Thank you for your attention to this matter. It's worth mentioning that the leader of the article also states Drøbak is my place of birth, that's incorrect. Also, I do not reside in Los Angeles, California. Gryanwiik (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I hope you understand what C.Fred's and my interests here are: to have an article that agrees with the guidelines, that is based on reliable secondary sources, and that does not violate the BLP. You may have noticed that I took out some detail, on that reality show, since that was not only unverified but also negative in tone. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair point about Drobak. Variety refers to it as a hometown, not a place of birth. I've changed the prose accordingly and removed the unsourced place of birth from the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred@DrmiesI can see that your intentions are good. FYI -- I did grow up in Hamar, Norway, which is verifiable in various Norwegian papers. The real issue here, is that there is essentially one article in English (Variety), which came out from the view of a singular event. There were many 3rd party statements made of me, mostly from Norway during that time. But the write up and overall sources provided are not biographical elements as it relates to my name. The article as written on Wikipedia only summarizes a biased selection of sensational headlines, and skips over any biographical or historical elements to its context. The context of all this was covered in one extensive interview I did with Dagens Næringsliv, who wrote a 14-15 page article, I believe it's in the sources but behind a paywall. The other by Verdens Gang, took the tabloid approach based on 3rd party statements. Good catch on the reality show. Gryanwiik (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I hope you understand what C.Fred's and my interests here are: to have an article that agrees with the guidelines, that is based on reliable secondary sources, and that does not violate the BLP. You may have noticed that I took out some detail, on that reality show, since that was not only unverified but also negative in tone. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred @Drmies In your own words, what is the purpose of BLP articles on wikipedia? Everything in this article, starting from the sentence; "In September 2009, Wiik co-founded..." through to the end of the article is either factually incorrect, or written by highly biased users with an objective to slander my name. It is an extreme one-sided negative view, not neutral, from a short period of time where I was involved in litigation claims. All such claims, were shortly thereafter -- settled. Why I am as the only party in the multiple suits discussed, the only article that shall serve as summary of all claims? And when you consider that no one has attempted to include related subsequent events, it can hardly be argued that I am a notable person or public figure worthy of a wikipedia page. This page needs to be deleted. If I, in the future do be come notable in the eyes of the public, perhaps then there will be enough verifiable sources to write an acurate and comprehensive article from top to bottom. Gryanwiik (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies The changes are complex enough that it's not easy to see what was removed, although it seems that the litigation was removed or recharacterized. That's concerning when it's done by a party to the suit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)