65:
42:
21:
152:
article size, in the context of much debate on the article talk page. In these circumstances it seems to me that the template, stating that the article "may need editing to conform to
Knowledge (XXG)'s neutral point of view policy" conveys a misleading impression to the casual reader or editor. Opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, --
151:
estimate that while edits by Young constitute 21.8% (the figure cited by the editor placing the template) over the history of the article, they currently involve only 6.4% of the content. Young seems not to have edited the article since 2017, since when a variety of editors have more than doubled the
182:
If friends editing counts as COI (and I agree it does), then so should enemies' editing. And much editing has clearly been done here by those who dislike . can we not just all be trusted to behave as responsible people, to read and edit the article in a responsible manner, and make up our own
183:
minds without being told or signposted what we should think? Just asking..... Perhaps my estimate of editors' abilities is slightly higher than yours in that I believe most of them will realize that elements of the article is controversial without them being told so, but I was ever an optimist
177:
tag according to common standards and practices. I suggested that Smerus raise the discussion in another forum because their arguments seemed not to relate to Toby Young but instead to the general usage of the tag, Smerus arguing:
167:
6.4% of the raw characters have been added by Young, but 21.8% of the prose text (as the article currently stands). These raw figures are sufficient to justify the
28:
81:
144:
135:
appropriate? There don't seem to be clear guidelines. I believe that the template has inappropriately applied at the article
114:
148:
93:
47:
Users who have been paid to edit
Knowledge (XXG) must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to
171:
132:
99:
195:
157:
95:
64:
131:
What is in the opinion of editors the proportion of text by an 'autobiographer' that makes
48:
140:
26:
To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
202:
161:
97:
190:
153:
136:
125:
100:
58:
36:
15:
189:More opinions anywhere are welcomed by me too. —
29:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
108:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
181:
118:when more than 3 sections are present.
7:
14:
139:and have raised the issue on the
112:may be automatically archived by
63:
40:
19:
1:
203:16:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
162:13:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
147:). In brief, in this case,
219:
133:Template:Autobiography
115:Lowercase sigmabot III
145:Village pump (policy)
141:article talk page
122:
121:
87:
86:
55:
54:
51:or related pages.
35:
34:
210:
198:
176:
170:
117:
101:
78:
77:
67:
59:
44:
43:
37:
23:
22:
16:
218:
217:
213:
212:
211:
209:
208:
207:
196:
174:
168:
149:page statistics
129:
113:
102:
96:
72:
41:
20:
12:
11:
5:
216:
214:
206:
205:
187:
186:
185:
128:
123:
120:
119:
107:
104:
103:
98:
94:
92:
89:
88:
85:
84:
74:
73:
68:
62:
53:
52:
45:
33:
32:
27:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
215:
204:
200:
199:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
173:
172:Autobiography
166:
165:
164:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
127:
124:
116:
111:
106:
105:
91:
90:
83:
80:
79:
76:
75:
71:
66:
61:
60:
57:
50:
46:
39:
38:
30:
25:
18:
17:
194:
130:
109:
69:
56:
137:Toby Young
126:Toby Young
82:Archive 1
143:(and at
70:Archives
110:28 days
191:Bilorv
154:Smerus
49:WP:COI
197:talk
158:talk
201:)
175:}}
169:{{
160:)
193:(
156:(
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
