Talk:Rafal Heydel-Mankoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Cleanup

The follow cleanup would be much appreciated on this article:

  1. Inline citations - Although the current referencing of sources is better than is seen on some pages, citations on Wikipedia are supposed to be inline citations. That is, on the line where they are referenced. Please use the <ref></ref> tags for this.
  2. Fix internal links to articles for organizations - I did my best to link the text to any relevant articles, but it appears many of them do not yet exist. This may be due to misspellings in this article, incorrect word order, or the article simply not existing. In the case of the first two, it should be corrected.

Thank you for your hard work, --Lifebaka 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduated Educational Centers

What are the names of the Educational centers that he has graduated "educated in Ottawa and Toronto, Canada, where he received degrees in history and law (BA, LLB, MA)." Bnguyen 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] author bio

this sure reads like a vanity piece. some of the current content is just a repeat of his "deputy editor" bio - http://www.wokm.co.uk/contributors.pdf Canuckle 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a legitimate article. I don't know the subject, nor do I have any personal contact with him. I've seen him both on television and in print, and I think that he's notable enough for this to be more than just vanity. Also, if there are copy vios from the page you've provided, that's a problem...otherwise, it seems to be a fairly reliable source.--Eva bd 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is notability, then there's notability + vanity which is why the current content needs clean-up. For instance, yes he was awarded Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal but so did 46,000 other people. Canuckle 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Mea culpa. I started the article some time ago. I know the subject as we are both in two of the same organizations and I hold him in high regard. I have never created a Wikipedia entry before and was not really sure what to do (I recently turned 70 years old and am only just getting to understand the Internet). I simply did a Google search and based much of the original article on the biography that was provided here: http://www.wokm.co.uk/contributors.pdf and added other information I knew. I didn't realise that was against policy and so sorry about that. I'm also sorry if I was too colorful in my praise but I don't have your experience. But I do think Canuckle is being too suspicious. For instance he removed most of the links claiming they were vanity/spam links and yet most of these links as well as the media "quotation" which Canuckle removed were added by Bnguyen, a long standing Wikipedia writer. So clearly not vanity. The link to www.wokm.co.uk also appears on Guy Sainty's wikipedia entry so are we saying this is also spam/vanity? It's also (I think) common knowledge that the Golden Jubilee medal was awarded in large numbers so I didn't think it necessary to include this fact (I also didn't know exactly how many were awarded but, having just done a quick google search, I see that in many other biographies where this medal is mentioned it does not mention the number awarded so I don't see why this is an issue). But it's no big deal. Anyway, I'm sorry if my phrasing was not the best and if I drew too much from one source. If you now think the article is cleaned up then perhaps it can be removed from the "to be deleted" list or if there are still problems can you simply please delete it completely. I created this article as I think the subject sufficiently important and becaus I personally admire his work and respect him. So I'm a bit distressed that the article has caused Canuckle to make comments that cast doubt on the subject. I'd rather have the whole thing deleted rather than have those unnecessary remarks in the "Discussion" and "History" section stay on the Internet.

Thank you. SP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter69 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not against policy to use a book publisher's bio. It's just that verification is vital so it's a bit spammy to solely rely on people/sites with a vested interest in promoting the subject. Looks like he's one of those people who is notable but without easily-accessible, reliable, independent sources that explicitly say "this guy is notable." Without those sources, it's difficult to tell it apart from a puff piece or a hoax. Don't be distressed at all that it's gone under the microscope. The end result is an improved quality of article. And with no "delete" votes expressed in the WP:AfD discussion, it's extremely likely that an administrator will close it in a few days as keep. Keep up the contributions to Wikipedia. It's important that a diverse range of perspectives be given. Canuckle 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Canuckle, thanks for the comment and the clarification. I am learning (and this experience has taught me much!). I'm beginning to understand how people get addicted to Wikipedia! I think the article does read better now. Now, would you object if I deleted just this "Author Bio" section of the discussion page? (Or perhaps you might delete your own comments if you want). I'm still uncomfortable with the accusation of "vanity" remaining in the discussion page. I know the subject and I feel a bit guilty/embarassed for having caused this slight slur and would prefer that it wasn't kept on this site. Do let me know if I can do this (or, if you want, just delete it yourself). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter69 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is against Wikipedia policy to simply delete this information. It is clear from this discussion that this is not a vanity piece, so I see no real harm in leaving it up. In all likelihood, over time, it will get buried and archived and no one will see it anyway.--Eva bd 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Dear Eda, Ok. Thanks for the correction. I thought it was allowed under this section of the guidelines:

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: If you have their permission Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything."

But you guys are the experts so I will go with what you say. Thanks. SP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter69 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)