| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Commercial links edit
I deleted or noted all the Amazon commercial links, which as I said in one of my edits, have no place on Wikipedia.
Ken M Quirici 18:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)
- The above user put two copies of a similar statement into the article page itself, which properly belonged on the talk page, so these remarks I have now deleted. The original source of these direct links to Amazon was user:Freespirit.freebird back in 2011. I doubt he's coming back any time soon to tidy this up. It appears this user only edited this article. The direct Amazon references should be converted to cite book format. However, it's better to have references than to not have references. These references also suffer from the drawback of being primary references. Even better if someone replaced these with better references, as an edit box on the page already suggests. — MaxEnt 06:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion? edit
The subject of this article is also one of the editors of the article. Some of the text is identical to text on his personal website. He is also the cited source of much of the information. To me, the article smells of self-promotion. (Of course, it could be much, much worse.)D.Holt (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
In April 2017 I updated the affiliation attributed to me, which had been previously listed as Bangor University, as I was no longer at Bangor. The term 'language and communication expert' is the form that currently appears. Having now studied the Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding potential neutrality issues, I won't edit the page myself, but provide the following secondary source that substantiate the designation 'language and communication expert', should another editor wish to add these example sources, to avoid any neutrality assertions An biographical article that appeared in the Times Education Supplement using that designation: TES And coverage in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper: Sunday Telegraph piece
Representative links to provide secondary sources that evidence expertise in digital communication and especially emoji including coverage written media coverage on my work in, for instance, Newspaper articles: Chicago Tribune Radio broadcasts, such as a 30 minutes interview aired on BBC Radio 4: BBC Radio Interview An one hour interview on the US public radio show, Kera Think, Kera Think A five minute interview on SKY TV (UK): Sky TV. This also used the designation 'language and communications expert'.
If anything else is in dispute, I'm happy to provide sources as required to help clean up. --Vyvevans (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)