Talk:Simon Dolan

Review from Chzz

General notes:

• The article just about passes the notability requirements, in my opinion - but it really could do with one or two decent reliable sources, such as mainstream newspaper articles or something.
• Twitter is in no way an appropriate source; remove it
• Do not put links within the body; external links should only be used as references, or (in a very limited capacity) in an 'external links' section - see WP:EL.
• Use == Section headings ==. For example, instead of '''Early Life and career''' put ==Early life and career ==

Simon Dolan is a predominant British businessmanand serial entrepreneur with business interests primarily in the finance industry, most notably SJD accountancy [1], Easy Accountancy [2] and Contractor Umbrella [3]. As of 2009, his companies are worth an estimated £50 million.Note, links to the corp websites do not verify that he worked there

Early Life and career

Simon Dolan grew up on an estate in Chelmsford and attended KEGS Grammar School [4]. His inquisitive nature led to him being asked to leave the school at 16.(remove that, it's not encyclopaedic, not neutral, and not sourced)

Dolan’s entrepreneurial career kicked off colloquial, not an encylopaedic term; change to e.g. "began" aged 13,there is no point linking to the article on '13', it does not help with understanding this article selling free scratch cards to children at his Grammar school.(I doubt that this will be sourcable? His formative years were spent working on the local cheese and egg those three links are also pointless stall which he says, “Gave him a great work ethic” [5]. After trying his luck not encyclopaedic language as a rock star and a quick stint selling timeshares and photocopiers post-school, he finally landed himself not encyclopaedic language an accountancy job. Deciding to go it alone to make a bit more cash not encyclopaedic language , he placed an ad in the local paper for £10 offering accountancy services for a fixed fee [6].

Dolan’s first client gave him the money he needed to place another ad in the paper, from which he gained his second client. From this initial work he built up a small practice offering accountancy services to, “Subbies, chippies and brickies” [7].

After moving South from Manchester to Hertfordshire, Dolan tried to re-create his success in the South. His breakthrough came when he realised that there was a real need for specialist accountants focusing on contractors and freelancers. lHe built up his company by emphasising good old customer service values This is not neutral; if it is to go in the article, it would have to be a direct quotation and was the first accountant to introduce a money backed service guarantee[6]. In 2009, SJD Accountancy ran a £10 million turnover with over 10000 clientsonline.the preceeding facts would need a better source, not just the word of Dolan in an interview Dolan has consequently set up firms including Easy Accountancy [8], Contractor Umbrella [9] and race team Jota Sport [10].

Business Philisophy

When it comes to business, Dolan focuses on keeping his staff happy and making money(deleted; not neutral). He claims that you don’t need to have fashionable management techniques and instead focuses on employing people with a, “Special spark”[11]. SJD Accountancy is now 26th in the Sunday Times Best Small Companies ratings, cited for its, “Low stress environment” [12].

Other Businesses

Dolan takes a keen interest in racecar driving and consequently formed the company Jota Sport – a division of the sportscar racing outfit, Team Jota. He also takes part in the racing side of the business, driving for the team at all major events.

Through the social networking site, Twitter, Dolan is now looking for investment opportunities. He’s offering entrepreneurs and small businesses the chance to pitch him their idea in a Twitter message of 140 characters [13].struck out, because these 'facts' are not verifiable
Chzz (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2009‎ (UTC)

Update from Bossbuild

The above issues appear to have been addressed, I have removed the tags from this page. Bossbuild (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on what exactly? Nothing has been done to make this article remotely encyclopedic, it is still written in a style of bullet points rather than actual prose, it's heavily self-promotional and heavily edited by those associated with Mr. Dolan and his businesses. These are all the issues raised, and all still exist within the article. Do not remove clean-up templates simply because you do not like them. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, the "above" issues from User:Chzz were from when the article was originally being created, in 2009, two years ago. The templates at the top of the article now are from 2011. Clearly the issue from 2 years ago is not the same issue as now. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have based this on the fact that everything, in my opinion, that User:Chzz has listed above has been completed. :I myself have addressed the issues in the clean-up tag.

I re-worded some of the content - ensuring it's not been written from a biased point of view.

I have removed irrelevant references and external links - Thus cleaning the article up.

"It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject" - The first I heard of Mr. Dolan was when I hit the "Random Article" button, so I have no connection with the subject.

These are the three issues that the clean-up tag is pointing out. All three issues have been rectified, as have the comments and suggestions contained in the review from another contributor. If you feel that changes still need to be made to the article then please make the changes yourself. I have rectified all the problems detailed within this article so in my opinion it has been cleaned up. Therefore, once again, I have removed the clean-up tags.

Bossbuild (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I stated above: The template that I added to the article is NOT related to the issues addressed by User:Chzz. Cleaning up the mistakes that Chzz pointed out two years ago, many of which were no longer in the article anyway, does not mean that the article is "fixed". Therefore removing the template is improper as you have not addressed the issues raised by the template.

None of the issues addressed have been rectified. Just because you removed a few references does not make the article "cleaned-up". The prose of the article is absolute rubbish and is not at all written in a style fitting of an encyclopedia or of Wikipedia. The article is still heavily biased, in part due to the fact that the article is still heavily edited by persons related to Mr. Dolan. As you so graciously pointed out, you should check the article's history more carefully to see where these edits are coming from, and where the issue of conflict of interest has been raised before with specific users. Note that I never specifically stated that you were a conflict of interest, although I cannot help but admit that your user name and its relation to a company of the same name, and the sort of work they do, is highly suspect. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers The359 - I am still fairly new to contribution so your help is appreciated. I want to move onto my next topic as soon as possible so I apologise for trying to rush the things. Having re-read the article from top to bottom I now realise that the natural flow of the content should be taken into account too. I agree that it does not read well and I will try to bear this in mind when editing articles in the future. Looking further back in the history of this article I can see that the page was created by one user and the fact that this individual had such detail on Mr. Dolan would suggest that the user has an affiliation with him, or is indeed Mr. Dolan himself.

There was also direct mention of company names within the article, I didn't notice this on first glance, and I have now removed them as this is blatant advertising. The article does seem to have a lot of focus on Mr. Dolan's business interests, so I am going to try to filter this out.

I've never actually put my username into a search engine before so seeing the results were quite interesting. During my youth I was part of an online gaming community with the username "[Cor3]Bossbuild" hence the name Bossbuild. A little silly, but I've always stuck with it.

I feel compelled to rectify the problems with this page, Starting an edit and not finishing it is certainly not the impression I want to give as a new contributor. I am going to look for some easier pages to get some more experience and come back to this in a couple of days. Thanks for your help. Bossbuild (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I have only just got around to looking at this page again. I've researched Mr Dolan a little and found some good references. I've removed all the dead links from the page and rephrased some of the content to improve it's natural flow. I've also taken out all the content that seemed to be written from a biased point of view, there was a lot of poorly sourced information that someone neutral to Mr Dolan would not have access to. In my opinion I would say that this page now meets Wiki quality standards and I see no reason for the page to be marked for amendments. If you disagree, please do tell me where you think I have gone wrong with this edit as it took quite a long time! all the best Bossbuild (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is almost no improvement over the article from before your edit, to be quite honest. You have the same editing motif of completely ignoring the concept of a paragraph, instead listing referenced events in bulleted form (minus the bullet). You've removed cited items, and removed items simply because the citation link was dead, something which is not a reason for removing material. Nor is simply lacking a reference automatically means for removing text. If a link existed at some point, then that reference is valid, regardless of whether or not you can read the link at this very moment. The first two major sections of the article *and the majority of the article honestly) are a listing of Dolan's appearances in media? Is this a listing of scheduled PR pieces or an encyclopedic article?

And let's not forget nominating an article for deletion incorrectly, and then failing to explain your actions. Or removing legitimate clean-up templates in order to add ones that are minor compared to the ones that you removed, followed by giving some sort of two month warning over an article you've never been involved in. You clearly have not the slightest clue what you are doing. If you want to learn about editing Wikipedia, edit Wikipedia on a minor scale. Attempting to delete articles or rewrite articles wholesale, especially ones that you have no background with the subject matter, has been more destructive than constructive. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simon Dolan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120319010023/http://www.motorstv.com/car/endurance/lms/08062010/lms-jota-sport-sign-aston-martin-deal to http://www.motorstv.com/car/endurance/lms/08062010/lms-jota-sport-sign-aston-martin-deal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

COI

Large sections, and some high contentious ones, have been added by User:Ziggyblackstar who, in over 3 years, has only contributed to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is worthy of wiki

This is written by the subjects PR team. It should either be hugely improved or deleted. Wiki is being used for advertising. Rustygecko (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant NOT worthy of wiki Rustygecko (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted 2 sections already: "‎Mandalay Estate, Mustique" section because it was written from 1st party and 2nd party sources and contained irrrelevent information and promotional material. It also had no evidence for its notability and the "keep britain free" section because it had no citations and had content already explored in the covid 19 section. Gd123lbp (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolan's PR team keep adding bad content to this article Rustygecko (talk) what do we do? There are a few returning users that keep on doing this, can we get some administrator help? Gd123lbp (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is a joke. It's simply PR. Frankly it should be deleted rather than let it abuse wiki as is. I think somebody higher should get involved. I don't know how to do that though. Rustygecko (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Companies House

The Companies House citations should be removed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 March 2021

This needs to go back to the revised version prior to the reinstated version which houses vandalism, misinformation, opinion and dodgy sources. The last edited version which removes these ambiguous links, personal attacks and vandalism needs to be restored in the interest of neutrality.

Having lines like 'Dolan claims' and 'Dolan believes', stating Twitter as a source of information and 'conspiracy theories' really is not a neutral biography but someone's view of this man. It should not be allowed, this is why I restored the previous version of the page.

This version also leaves out REAL information about Dolan's actual biographical note, such as his films and motorsport career which the revision I conducted does.

This page has been vandalised and houses points of view that are not impartial. 2A00:23C7:EB8A:F501:2875:7DF9:46BB:4C36 (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitter was only used in a single instance, and was to reference Dolan's conspiratorial opinions.[14]. Dolan has been quoted himself in a Vice magazine article about COVID conspiracy theorists as saying that "I thought this whole virus thing was overblown right from the start...Because you come at it from that kind of mindset, I guess you're always looking for things to prove yourself right. You see more and more of those things and you think, 'This is wrong.'" Dolan believes that the government has ulterior motives for the lockdown. He sees it as a way for those in power to "test how malleable a society is" in order to limit citizens' freedom, or as a way to introduce mandatory vaccinations. Dolan also referenced climate change, which he says the government has "been banging on about". He said: "What has happened will undoubtedly help [climate change campaigns], because the world has become cleaner as industries have shut down."" [15] No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The quote you refer to No Swan So Fine is Dolan stating 'it is 'overblown' that does not make him a 'far right activist' as per the wikidata vandalism, or a 'conspiracy theorist' as per the page. A claim like that is opinion and as far as I knew Wiki wasn't a place for opinion? Twitter should never be used. Other sources such as Companies House are tenuous and much irrelevant to a biographical page such as this. Equally there are references with no cited source such as Dolan's 'drink driving charge', the next quoted source shows no such reference to this at all. The points of view on this page are not impartial. it was cleaned to an impartial state and it seems No Swan So Fine has some sort of beef with this man and therefore is continuously reinstating its vandalised state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EB8A:F501:34C4:89F5:B27A:DEE3 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note  Not done (as to the immediate edit request) this page is (no longer) protected, and may be edited directly. Please be sure to discuss and reach a consensus for any contentious changes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The assertion that Twitter should never be used is contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves which states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Itcontractor (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

unsourced height

It does not matter whether the claim is that he is 5'-3" or 5'-4" or 5'-7" or whatever other heights I may have missed. If it does not have a reliable source it is not going in the article. Meters (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Association with David Icke

Various users keep removing this section, often claiming libel, but without substantiating that claim. It may be inconvenient for Dolan and his promoters to include this section, which references Dolan's involvement pre-Covid with a leading conspiracy theorist, but everything in it is true and substantiated. The detail that Icke is both antisemtic and a conspiracy theorist is relevant to the standard reader who may have no expertise in this area. Can I ask that we discuss here please, rather than deleting the sub-section?User:itcontractor — Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Icke is solely labeled antisemitic by his critics, and said label has been disputed. He himself has denied it. Icke's own Wikipedia page makes this clear. --87.254.253.239 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I will restore the section but remove 'antisemitic' from the section title.User:itcontractor

Thanks for adding 'Icke has strongly denied and denounced claims that he is antisemitic.' That provides good balance to the section. I'll just round it off with a countering view from the ADL.User:itcontractor

In terms of the Lancashire Post article referenced by User 87.254.253.239, nowhere in that article does Icke deny or denounce (strongly or otherwise) that he is antisemitic. He does deny that he is a Holocaust denier. Perhaps User 87.254.253.239 could find a reference that substantiates the text.User:itcontractor

I believe it would be better to link directly to David Icke's Wikipedia page for more information about him as an individual. His association with Icke should be based around the documentary.87.254.253.239 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

While removing information about Icke as an individual, User 87.254.253.239 has (perhaps unwittingly) removed the Jewish News Times of Israel quote about this documentary and its context. So I am restoring this, assuming it was a 'good faith' error by the other poster. User:itcontractor — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User 87.254.253.239 has added the text '...featuring Croatian Politician Ivan Pernar, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and political activist Alice Walker, among others...' This isn't referenced by the IMDB link or elsewhere. Could the text be either referenced or removed? User:itcontractor

It is directly referenced by the IMDB link. See "cast". Regarding the documentary, I'm concerned surrounding the source itcontractor has provided. Icke's documentary does not reference any antisemitic conspiracies, rather, it focuses on Icke's personal life story. I await it contractor's rebuttal prior to making any adjustments.87.254.253.239 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed correct that IMDB currently shows these individuals as in the Cast. It also shows Terry Wogan who died in 2016, 3 years before the film was made. AS per Wiki guidance on IMDB https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb 'Citing the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) on Wikipedia raises questions if such references follow the important points given in the reliable sources guideline. This is because much of the database content in IMDb is contributed by users, not by experts. Plus, the editorial oversight by IMDb staff is minimal and not stated on the site, so you don't know what was edited and what was not.' So to rephrase my previous question: User 87.254.253.239 has added the text '...featuring Croatian Politician Ivan Pernar, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and political activist Alice Walker, among others...' Could the text be either referenced with a reliable source or removed? Thank you. Itcontractor (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the statement 'Icke's documentary does not reference any antisemitic conspiracies, rather, it focuses on Icke's personal life story.' Can User 87.254.253.239 substantiate this with a reputable source? I have included a quotation from a reputable source responding to this film for which Simon Dolan was the Executive Producer, and it's hard to counter this with what is User 87.254.253.239's currently unsubstantiated claim about the content of this film. However, a reputable source giving a different perspective from the current quotation sounds like a good idea to balance the section, if it can be found. Itcontractor (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This source references that the documentary is solely about Icke's life story. I have added the direct Amazon link, which includes Pernar and Walker as being on the cast.87.254.253.239 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The source provided (LEP) absolutely does not say that the documentary is solely about Icke's life story. On the contrary it states, '“It [Renegade] kind of follows the story of my life, but from a perspective of the information I've been putting out for 30 years. And that's really why I wanted to do it. It's because it has the potential to alert a lot of new people to the fact that the world's not like they thought it was.'Itcontractor (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Amazon Prime reference is an advertisement which claims that David Icke '...has been proved right again and again'. An advertisement is not a reliable sourced for wiki.Itcontractor (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than simply adding a reputable source to balance the article as stated in the update comment, User 87.254.253.239 has also removed the existing reputable source, perhaps by mistake. To achieve the aim of balance, I am retaining the newly added quotation and restoring the removed quotation.Itcontractor (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Itcontractor for correcting my error. That being said, am conflicted as to whether the information surrounding Icke's life is relevant at all. Readers should refer back to Icke's linked Wikipedia page. Does Icke's wikipedia page include a section detailing his association with Dolan? I don't see why such is relevant on either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.253.239 (talk • contribs) 16:47, May 10, 2021 (UTC)

I think the section is OK as it is. I don't see information about Icke's life. Two reputable sources responding to the film Renegade looks good, and there is some balance between them. I think the section could be improved by: firstly either referencing properly or removing the cast members (IMDB and Amazon Prime are not reputable sources); either finding a reference which actually references Icke denying that he is antisemitic (the current LEP reference Icke denies he is a Holocaust denier), or removing the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcontractor (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No, this section is mostly inappropriate. This article is about Dolan. It is not about Icke, or Ickes' views. Dolan executive produced a film about Icke. Fine, we say that and we link to Icke's article. This article is not a coatrack to go into detail about Icke or a film about him that is so non-notable it isn't discussed in Icke's article (beyond mere mention of its name), let alone notable enough to warrant its own article. Meters (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Social media section

I am reverting the deletion of this section. Social media presence is relevant and notable. And Dolan's move from Twitter to Gab is notable enough that it is referenced in the reputable source provided.Itcontractor (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe we need a section just to tell us what social media platform he is on. Why is his social media presence so important?

And per WP:BRD a challenged edit stays out until there has been a discussion and consensus is reached. The "D" doe snot mean drop a reason on the talk page and immediately restore it. Meters (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Do you think it would be helpful to contextualise Gab for the non-expert reader with a brief summary of the opening para of the wiki article (below)? This would in my opinion make it clear that it is relevant to a section partly about Dolan and Conspiracy Theories:

'Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[8] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists,[12] it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.[22] Gab says it promotes free speech, individual liberty, and "the free flow of information online", though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[25] Antisemitism is prominent in the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[27][32] Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[33]'

Or perhaps to provide a referenced sentence from that wiki page such as:

'In early 2018, a cross-university group released a research study on posts made to the site. According to that study, the site hosted a high volume of racism and hate speech,[156] and primarily "attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls.'

Do you think that would be an improvement?Itcontractor (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No. This is an article about Dolan, not social media. This article is not a coatrack to go into detail about social media platforms, or Icke's position's either, for that matter. Meters (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested why you think that Dolan's adoption of Gab (given the nature of Gab as a platform that attracts conspiracy theorists) is not relevant to a section about Dolan's involvement about conspiracy theories. Would you mind expanding please? Thank you.Itcontractor (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And how does that explain why you want to shoehorn in a lengthy description of Gab? No, I'm not going to keep this going. Let's wait for others to comment. You might want to read WP:SPA and WP:BLUDGEON in the meantime. Meters (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to shoehorn in a lengthy description of Gab and I'm unsure why you think I am. In the spirit of discussion, to see if we could reach consensus on how to improve the section, I asked if you thought it would be an improvement to add a brief summary of Gab. On the basis that this misunderstanding is hopefully cleared up ,and I apologise if I was responsible for this misunderstanding, would you be able to give your view please as to why you think this section should not be included. From my point of view, it is verifiable and relevant enough that Dolan is mentioned in a major newspaper's article on Gab. The user base of Gab also, in my opinion, makes it relevant to the overarching section which is in part about Dolan and conspiracy theories. You asked why I though this was important. Perhaps you might say why you think it isn't important. Thank you in advance. Itcontractor (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No point to mention Dolan's presence on GAB, seeing as he hasn't been active on there is several weeks. It's also highly inappropriate to include so much about David Icke on Simon Dolan's Twitter page.87.254.253.239 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm not trying to do research here on how active Dolan is on Gab, but to add a small section based on a reputable source that states that Dolan moved from Twitter to Gab, which due to the nature of Gab appears relevant to me for a section on Dolan and Conspiracy Theories - Gab attracts conspiracy theorists. I'm afraid I don't understand the reference to Dolan's Twitter page when it comes to David Icke. Itcontractor (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the IP's comment wrt Icke. There is a large section about Icke and his views and the film Renegade about him, which Dolan executive produced. We don't need to go into such depth about a non-notable film, which isn't even discussed in David Icke, let alone in its own article. I'm going to trim this to what I consider appropriate length and content. Meters (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

fwiw, "executive producer" is frequently code for "financed the film". Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I also don't understand why Dolan's change of social media platform is notable enough to appear in this article. If he was coerced into leaving Twitter or gave a newsworthy reason to change platform it might be more understandable. Currently it looks to the untrained eye more like guilt by association - Gab is used by conspiracy theorists, Dolan uses Gab, therefore Dolan sympathises with conspiracy theorists. I'm not for a minute suggesting bad faith on the part of an editor of this article, just reflecting on how the content might appear to readers. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Dolan's change of social media platform is notable enough to appear in a Scotsman article about Gab, so that, in my view, makes it notable enough to appear in a wiki article about Dolan. Gab may be used by conspiracy theorists, but it is also used by a range of conservatives. Itcontractor (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added some further refernced information to this section about Dolan's relationship with Twitter. Again, notable.Itcontractor (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to arbitrarily decide that this should go in. This has previously been challenged and I see no consensus to include it. Meters (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And it's even worse to restore what you know is a contested edit and then mention it on the talk page. Meters (talk)

Maybe Meters could say why they think it is not notable. I think that it is notable because a respectable national newspaper sees it as notable enough to include Dolan in an article about prominent people moving from Twitter to Gab. I would find it helpful if people could say why they think that does not make it notable.Itcontractor (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)