User talk:Timtrent

635:

mentioned that I would love to be clarified on how that article attracted a ‘COI’. I also added that I will be willing to take the issue to AN/I if he persists with his accusation. He gave no clarification at least to my questions but went ahead to give a ‘go-ahead’ if I choose to. Given that the AfC stated that it could not be resubmitted, I then moved it to the mainspace and informed him on his talk page. I stated that while I had significantly worked on the page, he is free to nominate it for a deletion so it goes through a consensus instead (since he’s not willing to give clarifications). I have created over 60 articles all of which are done in good faith. While I am aware that I am prone to mistakes and imperfections, it is disheartening when editors throw the ‘COI’ tags at one another without proper finding. I am discouraged and may withdraw from Knowledge all the same. A ‘COI’ tag is something I do not take lightly especially with my past experiences and deliberate efforts to avoid any form or appearance of it. I thought to reach out here because I wanted to weigh in on the counsel of a more experienced editor. I’m sorry for the long text but I’m unable to link to the talkpage conversations myself.

1909:

some of the linkages in the page as currently written are weakish (although I disagree about exactly how weak, given there’s a source given which says the dude who created the society did so specifically because he was concerned about the previous level of gang violence) seems not to matter so long as they exist - given the policy that says poor writing and referencing doesn’t decrease the subject’s notability”? Nor do they need to be in the article as written at all, at least not at first, given that the policy “does not require their immediate presence or citation in the article” as long as there is a “possibility or existence of notability-indicated sources that are not currently in the article”?

2050:

lot of the editors on here. I’d rather have a weak (but factually true) article on here if it’s useful / interesting, and then work to improve it, rather than deny / delete it, which seems to be some editors main interest (I’ve come across several, even just in two weeks, who only delete / deny, and do not edit / create - which I’m not suggesting describes you, or is even wrong, it’s just not my mindset). It… seems to have been wikipedias’s original motivating force too, and I wonder if time / cultural drift has affected it without people necessarily noticing.

1213:

talk pages really unhelpful, because all too often they lead to a good faith editor making the mistake of thinking that because they are not paid the warning doesn't apply to them, which leads to various problems, such as putting time and effort into arguing about whether they are paid or not, instead of putting the same time and effort into learning how to deal with the conflict of interest related issues. Why not just give them a friendly message about conflict of interest, since that covers the situation whether it's paid or not? I am

1052:

Inspiringflow, aka Inspiringflow1); a page which merely includes Thierry Rayer in a list of participants in an event; a page on the website of the organisation itself; and a page which, if I have correctly construed it, is merely a record of the registration of a trade mark by the organisation, in any case it is not substantial coverage. Both for that reason and because of the somewhat promotional tone of the article, I don't think there can be any justification for putting it into mainspace in its current form.

136: 282: 249: 594: 201: 1115:

editor whose job entails polishing up an article about their boss, professor or company. But I know that through AFC and patrolling, Tim has reviewed tens of thousands of articles at this point and would be able to spot whether the article's issues are ones that can be corrected through editing or whether draftification or deletion is called for. Thank you for spending some time to review it and,

23: 2046:

and thought it was interesting, which is why I tried to help out. I won’t ask you to review it, or check with anyone until after a bit of time has passed and I’ve touched base with the creator or had another go myself at digging up sources. I agree that the pre-society introduction is long, and… perhaps too reliant on quotes? But I don’t want to just cut it all either, because it isn’t MY draft.

225: 1785:

from Scotland TV and the BBC directly talking about the society at the time, a Glasgow times article from this year (2024) talking about the most famous artwork the society produced, and a book published in 2020 which is about one of the major participants of the society, and the play that won a fringe first award at the Edinburgh fringe.

986:? The original account has been warned multiple times already to not use Knowledge to promote their own work. The article itself has some content written like an advertisement and it might at least be be tagged accordingly. But a third opinion would be good at least, my knowledge with reviewing articles isn't amazing. 2015:

which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion,

1791:

You also note that there is too much information, and too many citations, so I can only assume that the extra stuff somehow dilutes the relevance of the other directly relevant citations/sources? I was under the impression that once the basics were established, extra sources didn’t subtract relevance

1578:

If you wouldn't mind taking a look to see if I'm on the right track (it's not quite yet completed, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your suggestions). I've gotten rid of a lot of the projects, and the ones that I've retained, I've included a bit of additional information on. Thank you

1784:

You said in your rejection that it didn’t have enough sources that were in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. As far as I can tell though, while the introduction about why the society was needed doesn’t directly address the society, in the section that does we have two TV programs

1114:

I clearly came to the right editor to ask for a second opinion. I definitely see COI issues but I don't think it is UPE since they are writing about their own organization. At least that is not how I understand PE which I see as a third party who is being compensated for writing about a client or an

696:

I am not able to make a comment on the COI suggestion. I can tell you that all of us may expect to be asked about COI at come point in our time here, and that, unless proven otherwise, our clear statement to the contrary, our denial, must be taken at face value. If yours has not been then ANI is the

2049:

Really I was mostly just trying to get the policy vs culture here clear in my mind, because 1/ it seems from observation that it differs, and 2/ I very much suspect that I prioritise usefulness / interest more, and… internalised policies around denying / deleting for lack of direct relevance than a

1952:

The role of a reviewer is to accept any draft whcih each of us, individually, believes has a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. To define "immediate" I choose it to mean "with no other edits since it entered mainspace" so obviously I didn't feel yours was quite

1908:

These policies seem to suggest that so long as the subject of the article (The society in this case), has been covered in external sources which are *significant, *reliable, *independant, *secondary sources - and that such sources exist whether or not currently included in the page as written. That

1895:

The absence of sources or citations in a Knowledge article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources

1780:

I notice that you just rejected Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society, and wanted to touch base to ask why / what to do about it. I didn’t create the draft, but had edited it and found sources for it during the last submission period, and would like to get it fit for acceptance if possible, because it

1725:

I would like to extend my sincere apologies for the recent misunderstanding regarding the "writing about yourself" guidelines. I misinterpreted the intent behind these instructions and did not realize that self-promotion was prohibited. It was never my intention to convey a misleading impression or

1460:

Hi there. I'm just following up on a declined submission. Would it be possible to get a bit of clarification on why it was declined? I've revised the sources for the submission quite a number of times to account for comments I've received. What would make them more successful? Likewise, a number of

2045:

that all makes sense, and definitely gives me something to think about. I think what I’m going to do now is maybe give the actual creator of the draft a chance to improve it, and possibly talk to him in a week or two if he hasn’t, see if we can get on the same page. I just stumbled across the page

1912:

I’m not at all having a go at you for denying the article, or suggesting that you should have done otherwise… I’m just confused since I’m new here whether the actual culture of long term editors has decided to interpret these policies differently than they are written (or at least how I am reading

1217:

happy with a warning which puts the main emphasis on COI, but also briefly mentions paid editing (as is the case, for example, with the standard prefabricated {{uw-coi}} message) but even that can be problematic, as an astonishing number of new editors can read that message, and come away with the

1212:

has said, but different from what Tim has implied. However, I regard it as, for most purposes, a distinction without a difference, because in both cases there's a conflict of interest, and if the one deserves a warning/block/deletion/whatever then so does the other. I find paid editing warnings on

770:

I have created a reasonable number of articles. Most are never challenged. Of those which receive a challenge, some were deleted correctly. Others survived. AT the time of nomination I feel a slight feeling of hurt, but I make sure I let that pass. Then I look at the rationale and decide whether I

1967:

Subjects, topics, with inherent notability should be accepted, perhaps even if the draft is exceeding poor, something yours is not, exceeding poor. The question is, what will happen at ? That is something I cannot predict. Deletion discussions are meant to be policy based. Usually they are. Often

1823:

There is a difficulty with pre society history, one you will not think obvious, and which is subtle. Imagine a reference saying "There is a need for Foo!" and another a while later, saying "We have Foo!" What those have not established is a link between need and arrival of Foo. We call any cause

1342:

I don't think I am going to argue with you. That we hold different views is absolutely acceptable. Most important, we hold them and disagree collegially. I doubt either would convince the other if we discussed the point for a lifetime. I also doubt the fine nuances either way really matter on the

1157:

The ones which annoy me do so by insulting my intelligence, by wheedling, whining, bamboozling, deceiving, dissembling, and creating a timesink. I'll work with them until I find them intractable. Among that bunch are those pushing the corporation that pays them, or makes their reputation. PE is a

2080:

A new reviewer is less likely to accept a borderline draft than an experienced one. The new reviewer still think is it is a but abut them and their reputation. An experienced one knows that it is all about the article. I aim to accept any borderline draft I come across, for example, because I am

1945:

I think there is often a difference between theory (policy) and practice (what editors do with a mainspace article). The role of Reviewer is to seek to protect creating editors such as yourself from the vagaries of editors who happen upon articles and sometimes offer them for deletion with poor

634:

which was submitted for approval. A reviewer Vanderwaalforces rejected it claiming ‘it utterly fails GNG’ and tagged a ‘COI’ to it. Respectfully, I went to his talk page and asked for clarification on why and how it fails GNG utterly, is it terms of the referencing or…? As regards the COI tag, I

791:

What more can I say? Thank you so much. I actually laughed because I am at that point of deciding whether I should improve the article to be kept or not. I’m actually playing a game here to see if it falls on ‘DO’ or ‘DO NOT’. I guess I’ll attempt to improve it to my best capacity. Whatever the

1391:

Thanks for the assessment. I was looking for an neutral opinion, and you told me what I'd feared but hoped against. It was worth a shot! I've already offered up pretty much every source that is available on line, and will not be revising the article further. Who and how should the draft be

1476:

Sorry, just seeing your other comment regarding notability. What would qualify? The firm is one of the most famous in Canada and has been around since the 60's, it's about as reputable in the country as it gets. I'm happy to include that information, I just don't know how to communicate that.

1051:

and, of course, Tim. Apart from the problems already mentioned, the references don't establish notability. Only the piece in Arab News could even be considered as relevant: the others are 2 interviews with Thierry Rayer (founder and president of Cercle d'Études Scientifiques Pierre Rayer, aka

674:

Thank you so much for your reply. I seldom get involved in conversations or disputes neither do I have any editor with whom I can really relate with. Going through all this alone has prompted me to at least ‘seek counsel’. Do you think I have a pattern of editing that goes against Knowledge

906:

Please now put this behind you and enjoy editing. By the way, not everyone enjoys the offer of a blessing, even if it something you use because of your faith. People here are of many faiths and of no faith at all. Your deity will approve of restraint in words whatever you believe inside.

1974:

If it does not, but needs the notability to be verified, the next question to ask of the draft is "Setting aside my wish for it to be published as it is now, looking at the draft with, ideally, a jaundiced eye, does it have sufficient references which pass the criteria below to survive:

176: 711:

whch I am sure you will not agree with at first. Please put any distaste aside, and realise that the article, as it stands, is likely (but not certain) to face deletion. There is much work do do in cutting material from it. All you have to do, all, is to prove that Nelly Agbogu passes

2021:

This is where I see it as just below the threshold. Does your new jaundiced eye see it as above? If you are on the fence about it (jaundiced eyes do that), don;t ask me simply to accept it. Instead, ask me to ask another reviewer whose opinions I trust, to take a look with a view to

1323:

Well, I still think that (1) arguing about ehether writing about one's own business is paid editing or not is pointless, because it doesn't matter whether it is or not, as it's covered by conflict of interest anyway, and (2) very often "paid editing" warnings do more harm than good.

1249:

FWIW, I'm with Timtrent on this. If an editor stands to gain financially from promoting a subject, then to my mind it's paid editing, whether in the course of employment, for a paying client, or by way of ownership of a business (etc.). Admittedly, the rules aren't entirely clear:

1207:

On the subject of paid editing, I don't see editing about one's own company as paid editing within the meaning of either the Knowledge policy on paid editing or the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. If I have understood correctly, that is in agreement with what

1643:

To many folk see the review and reviewer as an obstacle. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept

727:

Thank you for expressing your trust in me. I do not think you will have liked everything I have said and done after your first message. My first duty is to Knowledge, as I am sure you understand. By doing that duty as well as I am able I can help you as well.

675:

guidelines? Or is there something I’m doing wrong all the same? I also feel like I’m being bullied probably because I do not have badges, rights or technical legacies like some others — despite I’ve been here for quite some time (I may be wrong with this).

1305:

I have done my best to set my distaste for self aggrandising editors aside and to offer them substantial useful advice to seek to enable them to succeed. I think I should now step away and watch, leaving my trusty talk page stalkers to look hard at this

1139:

Thank you for your confidence in me. Have I really reviewed tens of thousands? Wow! Who knew? I also follow pictures to Commons, and do my best to seek to make sure that only the correctly licenced ones are retained. Yes, I'm that kind of sad nerd!

1837:

Do you see where I am going with this? Please come back with further questions. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a reply, In have been busy all day. I probably have left unanswered questions simply because I am too tired to think too deeply

1597:

You are definitely getting there. I think you are close. I know it's been hard to cut material out. Notability needs to shine out, and can only do so when there is "just" sufficient information to allow it to do so. Almost always less truly is

1254:

talks about 'compensation', which suggests money or other rewards exchanging hands, and could perhaps be seen to exclude gains in business value, reputation, and other indirect and/or longer-term benefits to business owners and the like. Whereas

1165:

I think this one is best in Draft space for now. We have a great team of very experienced reviewers who will allow it through once it meets policy. Unless it's submitted in the same state, of course, when I reckon someone will hit the G11 button

1956:

That means that, if you feel I ought to have accepted it, and say to me "Please revisit your review, I think you are mistaken" I will be happy to do just that, and accept the draft. You have no need to resubmit it, you only have to ask

939:

This is an article written by an alternate account of InspiringFlow. I'm hoping since you have so much experience reviewing articles, if you could glance at this one and see if any action is called for. Thank you for your expertise.

703:

may be a more gentle place to as why this draft was handled (in your opinion) unfairly. I suggest, though, that you set your emotions and feelings aside, realise that Knowledge is not a gentle place, and move forwards with

1904:

in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the

1639:

The difficulty with architects is that their product - design - has to speak for them. Thus a review of their buildings, while not always useful, can speak to the architect's notability. It all depends who reviews

930: 528:

Would it be better to remove references that are not reliable? I am not sure if I should keep them in. I need a few of them as inline citations. Otherwise I can't prove that what is being said is true.

972:

shows that they wrote an autobiography about themself, Thierry Rayer) and that might mean that the you consider moving the article to draftspace to be accepted by AfC since the creator has a COI (

135: 2053:

Anyway, not suggesting you made a mistake, and don’t have my more asks at this stage. Really happy you’ve taken the time to explain this so clearly to a noobie, and that you have a great weekend.

1686:

When you think you have completed this draft, let it mature for a couple of days before you resubmit. There is no deadline, but as it simmers gently you may think of the one key thing... 🇺🇦

2025:

I'm pretty sure I haven't given you direct answers to your questions, but have I answered sufficiently so you understand my thought processes? And remember, I make mistakes. We all do. 🇺🇦

1150:

paid editors, ones that trouble no-one, get it right, may need one decline/pushback for better work, and then submit an excellent draft. I value those highly. I think that may even be what

767:

Thank you. I feared you would resent my opinion at AfD. I am glad you have "taken yourself and your feelings" out if the equation, and are now looking only at how Knowledge can be improved.

1668:

Thank you for these resources! I'll review them all and hopefully will get this article where it needs to be (and will certainly be applying it to articles I hope to write in the future).

1601:

I've only skimmed what you have done. Anther reviewer will review it when you submit it (fresh eyes are always better), but what I can see is that the shorter draft welcomes the reader in.

1636:. A little too late for this draft, there is a process in it which almost guarantees success provided the topic is truly notable. You can still use it to check your trajectory, of course! 820: 1795:

Given that you want less information / fewer sources for acceptance, which parts would you like to see cut? I’m guessing the earlier “reasons the society was created” sections?

1019:

both named accounts agf sock warned. Article moved to draft, declined as an advert and for UPE. About to warn each "account" for UPE. This is neither inspiring nor flowing. 🇺🇦

1916:

Sorry for taking you time with this long reply - you seem to be really good at articulating this stuff, so I thought I’d ask, and hopefully it will help me do better in future.

1867:

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the

516:

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

1834:

Consider that the artwork may be notable independent of any notability of the society. It os a paradox that a work may be notable and the creator of the work may not be.

1729:

I deeply regret any confusion this may have caused and am committed to adhering strictly to the established guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding.

678:

I’ve seen your input severally with other editors, and I’ve also noticed your efforts here on Knowledge. Honestly, I had no one else in mind so I thought to reach out.

844:

please express your apology directly to the editor you spoke about. For my part I accept your apology. I am sure this was a behaviour you will not exhibit again. 🇺🇦

211:

If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are

1302:

I have suggested that they ask for one or other of the accounts to be blocked. AGF suggests to me an honest error, but perpetuated by flip-flopping between accounts.

1232:

I agree about the scope for misunderstanding. I disagree that creating articles about the company that pays "my" bills, were I to own one, would be simple COI 🇺🇦

1751: 1736: 1604:

From now on it's a matter of referencing. One good one is worth a goodly number of poor ones. Be ruthless in checking the quality of references. They must be:

1158:"reward, broadly construed" and that applies to Bert Foo of Foo Enterprises, his mom and pop shop business as much as it would to a captain of industry like 969: 1953:

there. Equally obviously I am relatively human and can make mistakes! I think you think I have here. That's ok by me. I have no need to defend my corner.

2071: 2057: 1942: 1920: 1814: 1799: 1960:

Now, if I cut to the chase of what you are saying, it is the difference between "Inherent Notability" and "Demonstrated and Verified Notability" - that

834: 154:

It is 10:29 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please

720:. The current references come close, but there are far too many interviews with her, her opinions, passing mentions, and far too little commentary 929: 1683: 1669: 1594: 1580: 1558: 1544: 1523: 1478: 1462: 188:

directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

1461:

the citations are from very reputable, widely circulated, newspapers speaking directly about Moriyama Teshima. Are you looking for print media?

903: 889: 862: 841: 826: 1828:. You need to be careful not to link the gangs and their disappearance with the arrival of the society unless a reference links them directly. 708: 2126: 1296: 1438:

Presumably there is nothing to prevent me from re-submitting the thing in the unlikely event that further suitable sourcing emerges.

1772: 1505:

Stand back from this. Ask yourself "What in this shows notability?" and be brutal. When you find it, clear away the brushwood. 🇺🇦

1858:

Don’t worry about replying quickly, I saw in your profile that you’re busy IRL, and was expecting a reply to take days not hours 😆

1807: 1820:

The TV shows are interesting. But one presented by the society seems to be what they wish to say, so doesn't verify notability.

1651:- undeniably notable as 'The first female war correspondent in US history', yet there is almost nothing to say about her. 🇺🇦 1502:

As I said, you have concealed notability in a welter of stuff. We need to cut the forest down to find the serial tree we seek.

42: 951: 1455: 105: 1624:(that is hard to judge, for example tabloid newspapers tend not to be reliable, despite being mainstream, media; Also see 535:

There are some references whether other companies and journalists speak about Film Afrika. They are not all promotional.

1470: 1346:

My jury is out on the templates. They need to be used well or not used. I am certain I have made some errors here. 🇺🇦

774:

What I try hard not to do is to take any of Knowledge personally. We are passengers on a runaway train, after all! 🇺🇦

1861:

I guess what is confusing me a little is what I’ve been reading over on the notability page - ie the parts quoted below

1766: 578: 606:

You know why, thank you so much. I hope that those two would enrich the encyclopaedia from their end. Best regards!

1579:

so so much for your help by the way. I've been eager to make this article better but wasn't sure how to tackle it.

1318: 1282: 1031: 647: 622: 2103: 2065: 2037: 1928: 1850: 1792:

from those basic sources, but maybe I’m wrong? Like I said, I’m new so I’m still trying to figure this stuff out.

1889:, even very poor writing and referencing within a Knowledge article will not decrease the subject's notability.” 1269:

which seems more readily to take in such benefits. To me, the latter reflects better (what I believe to be) the

697:

worst place to visit. Drama boards scrutinise all parties to a report, not just the editor who makes the report.

556: 1401: 614: 1698: 1677: 1663: 1588: 1573: 1552: 1538: 1517: 1486: 1333: 1003: 877: 1447: 1433: 919: 897: 856: 804: 786: 758: 745:

Thank you so much for your honesty and for taking your time to explain things better to me. I was previously

740: 687: 669: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 1726:

to make such an oversight, especially when the guidelines clearly state that self-promotion is not allowed.

2074:

The thing about all reviewers is that we have asked to perform the role because we want to accept articles.

1633: 1384: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 65:

I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask

1744: 1740: 1358: 1244: 1227: 1178: 1130: 1109: 1061: 959: 505: 259: 1946:

rationales (causing the creating editor stress and grief) and even sometimes succeeding in the deletion.

1892:- “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article 1817:

I'm not seeing the references and the text in the same manner that you are. I suppose that is obvious.

792:

outcome, I’ll be satisfied. Most of all, I’m happy I could come out of my shell, and reach out to you.

532:

I understand that you are not happy with the type of reference, but just wanted your advice on this.

1385: 749:

discouraged but I think speaking out really does work. I’ll work on the aspects you’ve pointed out.

552: 1777:

Hi there, sorry to bother you. I’m just new here, so I’m trying to figure out how this stuff works.

1411:

Sleep on it for a couple of days. Then, if you are certain it cannot be proven to be notable, apply

538:

For example: How do I say they won Emmy Awards without linking the citation to the Emmy Award cite?

1901: 1831:

References not mentioning the society are hard to justify as useful. Check these with care, please.

1495:

is an odd thing. You need to be able to verify its fame, but fame per se is not always the same as

2088:

in making sure those folk who need extra support to sail get the best fun they can possibly have.

1278: 996: 607: 2081:

confident in my thinking. And I still make mistakes. I am only as good as my most recent review!

1788:

These all seem to fulfil the in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent criteria?

2061: 1924: 1803: 584: 1491:

I'm glad you read the comment. I was just asking whether you had when you added this message.

973: 520: 156: 1648: 980: 563: 548: 1881:

and not of a Knowledge article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Knowledge,

8: 1993: 1897: 1625: 1882: 1673: 1584: 1548: 1482: 1466: 1274: 1084: 1042: 1014: 987: 2012: 2008: 1443: 1397: 893: 830: 800: 771:

can improve the article to allow it to be kept. Only then do I choose to do the work.

754: 683: 643: 113: 1885:

to the Knowledge content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the

2085: 1886: 1259: 61:

I may not bother with posts where articles are not linked and posts are not signed.

1561:

You can do this. What you have now is far larger than the end result will be 🇺🇦

1291:

Since you loaded my magazine with a cannon shell, aimed me and pulled my trigger (

825:

Hello Timtrent, I am very sorry concerning my statement. Please accept my apology

657:

Thank you for your message. Why do you feel I am able to assist you, please? 🇺🇦

1825: 976:) and maybe warn the creator against using multiple accounts with something like 700: 1415: 1251: 1218:

impression that it doesn't apply to them because it's only about paid editing.

1151: 1971:

What you need to think hard about is "Does my topic have inherent notability?"

484: 2120: 2092: 2026: 1839: 1755: 1687: 1652: 1562: 1527: 1506: 1422: 1347: 1329: 1307: 1233: 1223: 1167: 1098: 1088: 1057: 1046: 1020: 908: 866: 845: 775: 729: 713: 658: 567: 281: 185: 123: 2004: 1999: 1720: 1621: 1439: 1408: 1393: 796: 764: 750: 716:. prove that and it will not be deleted. It doesn't take much to prove it, 693: 679: 654: 639: 631: 968:

Some action is called for, since the creator has a COI (the talk page for

1864:- “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists 1496: 488: 490: 593: 141:

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

2084:

The weekend will see may at my local sailing club. I support my local

248: 1159: 102:

for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity.

89:

When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here.

29: 1077:

I'll leave it to any of you who want to stop me from being naughty,

1070:

not be a naughty child and just play nice and G11 nominate it. The

68:

If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.

1647:

Let me digress and give you an example of brevity and notability -

1339: 1325: 1288: 1219: 1209: 1136: 1121: 1116: 1080: 1053: 1038: 1010: 965: 942: 486: 175: 2011:

which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and

821:

I am very sorry concerning my statement. Please accept my apology

129:

to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

1297:

User talk:Inspiringflow1 § Knowledge is not for self promotion

491: 541:

Are the Emmy Awards considered a reliable reference or not?

1949:

That was a whole paragraph to say that Knowledge is weird!

106:

Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable

2077:

At the same time we also want to keep the true trash out.

1855:

Hi there, thanks very much for taking the time to reply.

1154:

was intended for, and to encourage (with transparency).

1295:)I felt you would wish to read the correspondence at 865:

Indeed, I see that you have done so. Thank you. 🇺🇦

86:, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. 275: 1543:Appreciate the encouragement! Will give er a shot! 1900:; it does not require their immediate presence or 1607:Significant coverage (3 or more useful paragraphs) 1093:. It's that naughty time of day for me, you see 2118: 1874:- “Article content does not determine notability 63:I may just delete them and ignore them and you. 1392:removed? Thanks again for taking the time. 499:This page has archives. Sections older than 1097:, and inspiration has started to flow. 🇺🇦 709:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nelly Agbogu 2091:I hope your weekend is excellent tooo 🇺🇦 931:Cercle d'Études Scientifiques Pierre Rayer 1421:on a line of its own, at the head. 🇺🇦 882:Yes. Timtrent.I won't exhibit it again. 157: 32:and may not respond swiftly to queries. 2119: 1773:re: Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society 1613:About the subject of the article, not 1267:"financial stake in promoting a topic" 257:This user's talk page is patrolled by 1066:I can't make up my mind. I suppose I 47:to any article you want me to look at 885:And l have tender my apology indeed. 243: 238: 195: 130: 17: 43:Click here to leave a new message, 13: 2127:Wikipedians open to trout slapping 1824:relationship stated or implied as 627:Hello. I hope you’re doing great? 566:Please ask another reviewer. 🇺🇦 14: 2138: 1781:seems like an interesting page. 1456:Draft:Moriyama Teshima Architects 503:may be automatically archived by 1493:one of the most famous in Canada 592: 280: 247: 223: 199: 174: 134: 21: 1497:notability in a Knowledge sense 2104:15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 2066:15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 2038:14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 1986:the topic of the article, and 1964:what you are saying, isn't it? 1929:13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 1877:Notability is a property of a 1851:19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1808:08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1767:06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1745:00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1699:21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1678:21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1664:21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1589:20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1574:16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1553:16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1539:16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1518:16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1487:16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1471:16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1448:13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1434:14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1402:13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1359:18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1334:18:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1319:07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1283:05:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1245:21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1228:21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1179:19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1131:18:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1110:17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1062:16:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1032:07:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1004:04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 952:01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 920:12:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 898:12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 878:12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 857:12:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 835:12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 805:12:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 787:12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 759:12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 741:12:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 688:12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 670:12:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 648:11:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 615:07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 579:17:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 557:11:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1: 1119:, for reviewing the sources. 888:Thank you and God bless you. 623:I would love your counsel on… 82:This is the home account for 181: 172: 40: 7: 1978:We require references from 10: 2143: 1610:Independent of the subject 707:I have left an opinion at 153: 81: 1386:Draft:John_M._Dorsey,_Jr. 600:The Barnstar of Diplomacy 591: 224: 1883:no amount of improvement 1273:of this type of COI. -- 91:When I leave message on 1898:exist in the real world 1754:No worries at all 🇺🇦 1632:You might wish to read 217:and you should contact 186:remove personal attacks 1887:source material exists 506:Lowercase sigmabot III 2086:RYA Sailability group 1798:Thanks for your help 1146:I am very happy with 109:. If you want to use 28:This user is busy in 1649:Elsie Reasoner Ralph 1526:forgot to ping 🇺🇦 1074:in me wants to play. 585:A barnstar for you! 2007:. Please also see 970:User:Inspiringflow 630:I created a draft 521:Draft: Film Afrika 261:talk page stalkers 95:Talk page, I will 1994:secondary sources 1919:Thanks, Michael. 1913:them as written)? 1752:Coreycreativemind 1737:Coreycreativemind 1343:'own corp' front. 960:talk page stalker 936:Hello, Timtrent, 795:Thank you loads! 718:if it is provable 620: 619: 513: 512: 274: 273: 269: 268: 237: 236: 194: 193: 168: 167: 149: 148: 145: 144: 108: 77: 76: 36: 35: 2134: 2100: 2095: 2034: 2029: 2016:certainly today. 1847: 1842: 1763: 1758: 1695: 1690: 1660: 1655: 1622:reliable sources 1570: 1565: 1535: 1530: 1514: 1509: 1430: 1425: 1420: 1414: 1355: 1350: 1315: 1310: 1264: 1258: 1241: 1236: 1175: 1170: 1129: 1106: 1101: 1092: 1050: 1028: 1023: 1018: 1001: 1000: 994: 993: 985: 979: 963: 950: 916: 911: 874: 869: 853: 848: 783: 778: 737: 732: 666: 661: 612: 596: 589: 588: 575: 570: 508: 492: 284: 276: 262: 251: 244: 239: 230: 228: 227: 226: 210: 203: 202: 196: 178: 170: 169: 163: 161: 151: 150: 138: 131: 128: 122: 118: 112: 103: 79: 78: 69: 53: 46: 38: 37: 25: 24: 18: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2117: 2116: 2098: 2093: 2032: 2027: 1845: 1840: 1775: 1761: 1756: 1723: 1693: 1688: 1658: 1653: 1568: 1563: 1533: 1528: 1512: 1507: 1458: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1412: 1389: 1353: 1348: 1313: 1308: 1294: 1262: 1256: 1239: 1234: 1173: 1168: 1143: 1120: 1104: 1099: 1096: 1078: 1036: 1026: 1021: 1008: 998: 997: 989: 988: 983: 977: 957: 941: 934: 914: 909: 872: 867: 851: 846: 823: 781: 776: 735: 730: 664: 659: 625: 608: 587: 573: 568: 564:Karinvanderlaag 549:Karinvanderlaag 523: 504: 493: 487: 289: 270: 260: 222: 220: 206: 200: 155: 126: 120: 116: 110: 67: 52:sign your posts 51: 44: 22: 12: 11: 5: 2140: 2130: 2129: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2089: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2017: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1893: 1890: 1875: 1872: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1821: 1818: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1618: 1611: 1608: 1602: 1599: 1503: 1500: 1457: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1344: 1321: 1303: 1300: 1292: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1163: 1155: 1144: 1141: 1094: 1075: 974:WP:DRAFTREASON 933: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 886: 883: 880: 822: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 793: 772: 768: 725: 705: 698: 676: 638:Best regards. 624: 621: 618: 617: 603: 602: 597: 586: 583: 582: 581: 522: 519: 511: 510: 498: 495: 494: 489: 485: 483: 480: 479: 454: 414: 374: 334: 291: 290: 285: 279: 272: 271: 267: 266: 252: 242: 235: 234: 214:not legitimate 204: 192: 191: 180: 166: 165: 147: 146: 143: 142: 139: 87: 75: 74: 66: 64: 62: 60: 48: 34: 33: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2139: 2128: 2125: 2124: 2122: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2030: 2024: 2020: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 1996: 1995: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1968:they are not. 1966: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1871:of articles.” 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1843: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735:Corey Wesley 1733: 1730: 1727: 1700: 1696: 1691: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1605: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1417: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1387: 1360: 1356: 1351: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1320: 1316: 1311: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275:DoubleGrazing 1272: 1268: 1261: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1180: 1176: 1171: 1164: 1161: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1126: 1125: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1090: 1086: 1085:Fathoms Below 1082: 1076: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1048: 1044: 1043:Fathoms Below 1040: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1016: 1015:Fathoms Below 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 995: 992: 991:Fathoms Below 982: 975: 971: 967: 961: 956: 955: 954: 953: 949: 947: 946: 937: 932: 921: 917: 912: 905: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 884: 881: 879: 875: 870: 864: 860: 859: 858: 854: 849: 843: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 789: 788: 784: 779: 773: 769: 766: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 743: 742: 738: 733: 726: 723: 719: 715: 710: 706: 702: 699: 695: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 667: 662: 656: 652: 651: 650: 649: 645: 641: 636: 633: 628: 616: 613: 611: 610:Reading Beans 605: 604: 601: 598: 595: 590: 580: 576: 571: 565: 561: 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 545: 544:Kind Regards 542: 539: 536: 533: 530: 526: 525:Good Day Tim 518: 517: 507: 502: 497: 496: 482: 481: 478: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 292: 288: 283: 278: 277: 264: 263: 256: 253: 250: 246: 245: 241: 240: 232: 231: 229:wikipedia.org 216: 215: 209: 208:SCAM WARNING! 205: 198: 197: 190: 189: 187: 179: 177: 171: 162: 160: 152: 140: 137: 133: 132: 125: 115: 107: 101: 98: 94: 90: 85: 84:Fiddle Faddle 80: 73: 72: 71: 58: 54: 39: 31: 27: 20: 19: 16: 2097: 2072:Absurdum4242 2058:Absurdum4242 2031: 2003:please. See 1998: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1961: 1943:Absurdum4242 1921:Absurdum4242 1878: 1868: 1844: 1815:Absurdum4242 1800:Absurdum4242 1797: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1760: 1734: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1692: 1657: 1626:WP:FORBESCON 1617:the subject! 1614: 1567: 1532: 1511: 1492: 1459: 1427: 1390: 1352: 1312: 1270: 1266: 1265:words it as 1238: 1214: 1172: 1147: 1123: 1122: 1103: 1071: 1067: 1025: 990: 944: 943: 938: 935: 913: 871: 850: 824: 780: 746: 734: 721: 717: 663: 637: 632:Nelly Agbogu 629: 626: 609: 599: 572: 546: 543: 540: 537: 534: 531: 527: 524: 515: 514: 500: 294: 286: 258: 254: 233:immediately. 219: 218: 213: 212: 207: 183: 182: 173: 158: 99: 96: 92: 88: 83: 70: 56: 50: 41: 15: 2022:acceptance. 1988:independent 1980:significant 1732:Sincerely, 1215:reasonably 1160:#SpaceKaren 981:uw-agf-sock 704:confidence. 2013:WP:SELFPUB 2009:WP:PRIMARY 1997:which are 1990:of it, in 1634:this essay 1072:total brat 221:paid-en-wp 2056:michael. 1992:multiple 1982:coverage 1905:article.” 1721:Thank you 1644:articles. 722:about her 184:I do not 164:the page 100:your page 30:real life 2121:Category 1902:citation 1869:contents 1826:WP:SYNTH 1684:JLzero02 1670:JLzero02 1595:JLzero02 1581:JLzero02 1559:JLzero02 1545:JLzero02 1524:JLzero02 1479:JLzero02 1463:JLzero02 1089:Primefac 1047:Primefac 701:WP:AFCHD 287:Archives 114:Talkback 2042:Hi Tim, 1879:subject 1440:AwryGuy 1409:AwryGuy 1394:AwryGuy 1260:uw-paid 1252:WP:PAID 1152:WP:PAID 1087:, and 1045:, and 904:Eecogru 890:Eecogru 863:Eecogru 842:Eecogru 827:Eecogru 797:Mevoelo 765:Mevoelo 751:Mevoelo 747:utterly 694:Mevoelo 680:Mevoelo 655:Mevoelo 640:Mevoelo 255:Beware! 2099:Faddle 2094:Fiddle 2033:Faddle 2028:Fiddle 1846:Faddle 1841:Fiddle 1762:Faddle 1757:Fiddle 1694:Faddle 1689:Fiddle 1659:Faddle 1654:Fiddle 1569:Faddle 1564:Fiddle 1534:Faddle 1529:Fiddle 1513:Faddle 1508:Fiddle 1429:Faddle 1424:Fiddle 1354:Faddle 1349:Fiddle 1314:Faddle 1309:Fiddle 1271:spirit 1240:Faddle 1235:Fiddle 1174:Faddle 1169:Fiddle 1105:Faddle 1100:Fiddle 1095:😈😇🤡 1068:should 1027:Faddle 1022:Fiddle 999:(talk) 915:Faddle 910:Fiddle 873:Faddle 868:Fiddle 852:Faddle 847:Fiddle 782:Faddle 777:Fiddle 736:Faddle 731:Fiddle 714:WP:BIO 665:Faddle 660:Fiddle 574:Faddle 569:Fiddle 547:Karin 501:7 days 55:using 2102:🇺🇦 2036:🇺🇦 2005:WP:42 2000:WP:RS 1984:about 1849:🇺🇦 1838:🇺🇦 1765:🇺🇦 1697:🇺🇦 1662:🇺🇦 1640:them! 1598:more. 1572:🇺🇦 1537:🇺🇦 1516:🇺🇦 1432:🇺🇦 1416:Db-u1 1357:🇺🇦 1317:🇺🇦 1306:🇺🇦 1243:🇺🇦 1177:🇺🇦 1166:🇺🇦 1108:🇺🇦 1030:🇺🇦 918:🇺🇦 907:🇺🇦 876:🇺🇦 855:🇺🇦 785:🇺🇦 739:🇺🇦 728:🇺🇦 668:🇺🇦 577:🇺🇦 159:purge 97:watch 2062:talk 1925:talk 1804:talk 1741:talk 1674:talk 1585:talk 1549:talk 1483:talk 1467:talk 1444:talk 1398:talk 1330:talk 1293:🥷🏾 1279:talk 1224:talk 1148:good 1142:🥷🏾 1058:talk 1013:and 894:talk 831:talk 801:talk 755:talk 684:talk 644:talk 553:talk 124:ping 104:See 93:your 57:~~~~ 49:And 45:LINK 1957:me. 1620:In 1340:JBW 1326:JBW 1289:Liz 1220:JBW 1210:Liz 1137:Liz 1117:JBW 1081:Liz 1054:JBW 1039:Liz 1011:Liz 966:Liz 119:or 2123:: 2064:) 1962:is 1927:) 1806:) 1743:) 1676:) 1615:by 1587:) 1551:) 1485:) 1469:) 1446:) 1419:}} 1413:{{ 1400:) 1332:) 1281:) 1263:}} 1257:{{ 1226:) 1127:iz 1083:, 1060:) 1041:, 984:}} 978:{{ 948:iz 896:) 833:) 803:) 757:) 686:) 646:) 555:) 476:46 474:, 472:45 470:, 468:44 466:, 464:43 462:, 460:42 458:, 456:41 452:40 450:, 448:39 446:, 444:38 442:, 440:37 438:, 436:36 434:, 432:35 430:, 428:34 426:, 424:33 422:, 420:32 418:, 416:31 412:30 410:, 408:29 406:, 404:28 402:, 400:27 398:, 396:26 394:, 392:25 390:, 388:24 386:, 384:23 382:, 380:22 378:, 376:21 372:20 370:, 368:19 366:, 364:18 362:, 360:17 358:, 356:16 354:, 352:15 350:, 348:14 346:, 344:13 342:, 340:12 338:, 336:11 332:10 330:, 326:, 322:, 318:, 314:, 310:, 306:, 302:, 298:, 127:}} 121:{{ 117:}} 111:{{ 2070:@ 2060:( 1941:@ 1923:( 1813:@ 1802:( 1750:@ 1739:( 1682:@ 1672:( 1593:@ 1583:( 1557:@ 1547:( 1522:@ 1499:. 1481:( 1465:( 1442:( 1407:@ 1396:( 1338:@ 1328:( 1299:. 1287:@ 1277:( 1222:( 1162:. 1135:@ 1124:L 1091:: 1079:@ 1056:( 1049:: 1037:@ 1017:: 1009:@ 964:@ 962:) 958:( 945:L 902:@ 892:( 861:@ 840:@ 829:( 799:( 763:@ 753:( 724:. 692:@ 682:( 653:@ 642:( 562:@ 551:( 509:. 328:9 324:8 320:7 316:6 312:5 308:4 304:3 300:2 296:1 265:. 59:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index