User talk:Picknick99 - Knowledge (XXG)

855:

asm friends with a few - Sean Bean, Lenny Henry, Sir Richard Attenborough, Uri Geller - not name dropping here, but just to make the point that some Wiki editors would probably say I be banned from editing their pages too just because I know them. That hardly seems fair and no one knows who I know and who I don't know. One might equally say that I should not be allowed to edit the article on Burton on Trent as I'm from there and it would be a conflict of intersst because I'd be bound to be positive about it and not objective. Again, I have no objection whatsoever to the academic rigours of Knowledge (XXG) - but feel it most unfair that they are often applied in a random fashion.

2369:. Do you have any personal or professional connections ("such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship") to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker or any of the other people whose articles you have worked on? (A "yes" is fine here, it just means you should stop editing them in future, and we'll take a look at the articles to make sure they meet notability guidelines, haven't been edited with any inadvertent bias, and don't contain any unverifiable/unpublished information that you've added from personal experience.) -- 2390: 5512: 5411: 5233: 4004: 4117: 2984: 152: 5321: 5162: 5045: 3931: 3855: 3608: 2789: 2158: 3374: 500: 4219: 1674: 4980: 4917: 4854: 4791: 4728: 3686: 3198: 1894: 1395: 1246:, which you appear to have written yourself. If you learnt about Kevin Howarth's personal life from a press interview, then that's great and you should add the source to the article (even if it was printed magazine or TV slot). If you're a friend of Kevin who helped him to write his own Knowledge (XXG) entry, then you may have difficulty finding sources to support all of this - the 1224:, Howarth needs to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - a couple of profiles or interviews from the press or heavyweight film websites should be enough. If such sources don't yet exist, then Howarth doesn't merit a Knowledge (XXG) article at this time. 5286: 1349: 5250:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 4023:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 1819: 1600: 570: 272: 3336: 2604:(and may even be wrong). It's always better if articles are written by people unrelated to the subjects, working from published secondary sources. (Such as your work on the Bolingbroke articles - it's safe to assume you aren't being polite about a dead 19th century Viscount to spare his feelings, or recounting personal, unpublished anecdotes!) 2630:). Obviously nowhere near as bad as if Day had explicitly given you a desk and a salary and instructed you to edit Knowledge (XXG) on his behalf, but a company owner doing you a favour and you then deciding to write his company up on Knowledge (XXG), for whatever reason, doesn't look entirely on the level - I hope you can appreciate that. 735:

encyclopedia in 10, 50 or 100 years is going to find interesting or unusual? For some ideas: Is it the first to do something or the first in an area or industry? Is it the largest in a sector, the largest turnover or profits? Is there something different about the way the business is structured or the way it operates?

722:

relevant to an encyclopedic article about the company, and sounds overtly promotional). Also, it looks as if the company's claim to be notable is drawn off the notability of its clients (by all means have a list with a few well known clients, but ensure the notably is established elsewhere in the article).

2569:

Sorry that these questions seem harrassing, but I'm just trying to get a clear line from you on what your connection is or was to Clout Communications and its staff - you haven't yet given that (since Tuesday you've just told me that you've "disassociated" yourself from your friend's company and that

2454:

Clout Communications would be welcome to write about that company, its staff and clients, but if they were an employee of the company, the spouse of the CEO, or a close friend of the marketing manager, they would have a conflict of interest and should state this connection so that other editors could

907:

Twice this week I've been accused of copywright infringement; both times falsely. Once it was because the person hadn't bothered to actually read the copyright information, sojust presumed it was a breach! The other time all the information was there, just in the wrong place. But of course instead of

854:

Thamks for your message and support. I was beginning to think that I wa slost in some Kafkaesque nightmare like The Trial where one is constantly accused of mistakes, usually caused simply through ignorance and inexperience. The thing is, as a journalist, I know a lot of famous people for my sins and

2635:

I'd say the best way forward from here would be to get someone to look at the articles related to Clout Communications and make sure that all content is strongly sourced, that it contains no promotional or biased language, that it omits no significant controversies, and that the articles stand up by

2573:

I've just been hoping that you'd give me a straight answer and I could talk you through any COI issues and what to do about them. If you'd rather not discuss this with me any more, that's absolutely fine: I'll raise it on the COI noticeboard for other editors to take a look at, and will refrain from

1142:

Did your image get uploaded and then deleted, or were you unable to successfully navigate the upload wizard and upload the file? I was under the impression that files uploaded "with permission" would have a short grace period before being deleted, to see if permission was forthcoming. Afraid I don't

589:

Please do not remove the improvement tags unless the issue has been addressed. The inline citations can be legitimately removed; however issues still exist regarding the article's notability, advertisement/promotion and orphan status. Knowledge (XXG) articles are open to be edited by anyone and tags

431:

Sorry if the guidelines here seem a little opaque, but there's method in them somewhere, and the strong "conflict of interest" policy does what it can to keep Knowledge (XXG) neutral and impartial, discouraging the promotion of one book over another based on which author happened to drop by. All the

405:

By all means improve the content of articles, but simply listing your own (?) out-of-print book as "further reading" because you personally consider it to be "worthy" could be regarded as a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s conflict of interest policies. If you think it would improve an article to have

191:

Ok I'm going to help you out a bit here by posting links to various wiki regulations. When I tagged Simon Rumley for a speedy it was because it had no sources. All articles (particularly biographies of living people, or otherwise Knowledge (XXG) can be sued) must be sourced and have reliable sources

5293:. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable. But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you wish to improve the draft yourself, please do. Otherwise, you may consider donating it to 2419:

That's right, all I have are concerns, which is why I've been trying to discuss them with you. If you want to explain how your edits could look like a conflict of interest but actually aren't, or if you appreciate that you maybe do have a conflict of interest and want some guidance on how to handle

1550:

Hi Glad to know the Derbyshire link was useful - did I also mention the merton priory press too, who have several booksd relatedf to Derbyshire history. When I was at gramar school in the sixties we were press-gange dinto helping with an archaeological dig at the old Roman fort at Little Chester in

721:

I think the issue is how the article reads; so with a few tweeks we could improve it to meet the required criteria. The article looks as if its intention is as promotion for its founder (it says he worked for Columbia Pictures, Channel Four and Channel Five; that is enough - the extra detail isn't

302:

content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about

220:

and sign when you post on talkpages. I get your point of wanting to see it "live" instead of in a word doc. Perhaps next time try creating the article in your sandbox. You can of course cite other articles, but only if that article is well sourced and has the information your citing complete with a

2470:

If Greg Day is an old acquaintance of yours, then you have a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if the work was done for free, or if he didn't tell you which pages to edit, or even if you've lost touch since: if you are editing Knowledge (XXG) articles about a company run by an aquaintance of

990:

I've also added an online reference. A lot of users make judgement based just on the number of online references or hits on google. They shouldn't -the significant coverage the rules go on about doesn't have to be online (or even easily accessible). But still, a lot just glance briefly at articles

618:

I could have nominated the article for deletion as soon as I noticed the issues with it; I, however, took the softer approaches of using the improvement tags. Lists of articles are created from these tags and there are editors that work their way through those lists improving the articles. It also

2505:

If we are in the difficult situation where it looks from their website as if you are employed by Clout Communication as a PR associate, but you are actually only listed there as a personal favour, I and other editors would appreciate it if you could "provide full disclosure of the connection" you

454:

If you feel confident that a sticker at the top of an article doesn't apply any more, by all means edit the article to remove it (ideally with an edit summary explaining why) - if anyone disagrees, they'll hopefully explain their view in return. Let me know which articles you mean, though, if you

4444:

A number of your recent edits have been to insert obvert promotions of an article/author of questionable noteworthiness: specifically Terry Darlington and his book, Narrow Dog to Carcassonne. Knowledge (XXG) is not a promotional tool, and editing this way can be an indicator of further problems

2599:

obviously be wildly inappropriate, well-meaning friends are also discouraged - if I write an article about my friend and the company he runs, I'm going to find it hard not to be biased towards presenting him in a good light, and I may inadvertently omit negative material, or include content from

1454:

and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the

986:

The sources you use do demonstrate significant coverage (the most recent one is 2004 however, so maybe add some more modern ones too), and they are from reputable sources; national newspapers and the like. I would suggest they downfall is that they can't be verified (short of someone finding and

389:

If the book was not used to source any of the information in the article (and you seem to have added the same reference to four other confectionery articles, without adding any new content to those articles), then it is misleading to cite it as a reference. By all means add useful new material

734:

The easiest way of establishing notability is by stating the thing that sets the company apart from the others in its field. If people wanted a list of companies they would go to the yellow pages; think about what makes the company deserving of record: what is it that someone looking at the

1427:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see 740:

There are three newspapers cited, but there are no article names and authors (or even better would be a website link to the article), so there is no way to verify those references are correct. The fact they are from the 1990s and the company wasn't founded until 2006 looks dubious though.

509:. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. 737:

The very basic criteria is "significant coverage in reliable sources"; so has the company been subject to media attention?. Has an industry magazine run an article on the company? Has it been in a newspaper (passing references won't be enough- it needs to be the subject of the article or

5057:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5174:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2286:

Just bringing this up as a direct question because it looks like it was never clearly addressed in the past. Do you have any professional or personal connection to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker or any of the other people that you've written about at Knowledge (XXG)?

2894:

notable, just that the then-current version of the article (which had no sources) didn't show how she would "meet Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guideline". (The general notability guideline is, at heart, just that "an article must have at least two reliable sources".)

2528:

Okay, well, you are still advised to provide full disclosure of your connection to Clout Communications and its staff, even if this connection is now in the past. And any Clout-related articles that you edited before disassociating yourself would still need to be looked at.

2349:

I am not suggesting you should avoid editing the Uri Geller article because you once interviewed Uri Geller. I'm not interested in determining whether or not you consider Phil Collins to be a friend or a colleague. I am simply trying to determine whether you have broken

771:

If you find any articles that are overly promotional or you don't think are notable; send them to me and I'll nominate them for deletion. You can ask and ask for months wanting the articles to be improved but it's amazing how quickly things get moving when you nominate

5011:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in 4948:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in 4885:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in 4822:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in 4759:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in 1041:

That's not exactly true. he said "True encyclopaedias do not make value judgments but go on the facts of the matter. Anything else is purer intellectual snobbery and should be challenged.". That's not the same as calling you a snob, and it's certainly not vandalism.

914:

You have been putting your messages to me on my user page: the correct place is the user talk page. Anyone with any braincells at all can see that's an honest mistake, made through inexperience but he's saying he's going to try and get you blocked because of it.

2621:

That Day made you an "associate of the company" and you went on to create articles about that company and its clients may seem innocent from your side, but I'm afraid this looks quite bad under Knowledge (XXG) policy, as could reasonably be seen as falling under

2594:

A conflict of interest doesn't require the editor to be paid, directed, to have a conscious intention to promote a subject, or to be editing Knowledge (XXG) in a professional capacity. Although a paid, directed, promotional professional writing about a company

2898:

If someone has flagged an article with orange or yellow boxes, consider it a polite reminder! It means they want to see the article improved. If an editor genuinely thought that an article was unworthy or unsalvageable, they would have put it up for deletion.

619:

informs the passing reader or editor that there are issues so that they can improve on them. By removing those tags and ignoring the problems those issues are never going to get rectified, and if the article is not brought into line with policy it is deleted.

1078: 2718: 1360:

were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see

3943:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3867:

4370:

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

2714: 965:. You nominate yourself -people vote on whether you're to be approved or not. But wikipedia is not a democracy; number of votes count for nothing; and the ultimate decision is made by admin (the same fake democracy as with the deletion discussions). 247:. It is important that the permission be on file in order to verify that it is sufficient for Knowledge (XXG)'s licensing needs and that the intent of the copyright holder matches the licensing information on the image description page. Please see 3030:

Hello. If you mean you'd rather not receive automated alerts like the one above (there's a pre-ticked tickbox for "Notify page creator if possible" on the deletion form I was using), no problem, I'll make sure to untick it in future. All the best.

715:

I agree; Even after a few years the rules and processes (especially the technical ones) can be mind boggling, and the standard messages can be a right pain. I review articles waiting for creation and some of the standard messages just don't quite

4063:. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Knowledge (XXG), and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. 4143:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

3010:

2448:"If you have a personal connection to a topic or person (such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." 655:

Warning you has no long-term effects; reporting you could have lead to your username and IP address being banned from editing Knowledge (XXG). -Hence me giving you the benefit of the doubt and using Knowledge (XXG)'s standard warning messages.

647:

Yes you can remove tags once the problem has been addressed; the issue was that they were originally all removed with none of those problems rectified. Later they were all removed again whilst only the inline citation issue had been rectified.

178:

390:

sourced to the book, or challenge the incorrect "received wisdom" you've spotted, but simply adding the same book as further reading to multiple articles adds little to the encyclopaedia and could be regarded as inappropriately promotional. --

221:

reference, and edit other articles using sources to back up your claim. I'll write again regarding Alan Jones as a quick look of your talkpage and I see a bot has reverted you which gives me a clue but I'll look before voicing an answer.

134:

And with the deletion thing. I've tried my best but like I said: admins can be arseholes. They cherry pick what rules they want to follow, ignore those which contradict them, and never listen to facts and reason. Law unto themselves.

1570:

Sorry for delayed reply. Unbelievably hectic few weeks! Was hoping things had calmed down.... oh to be so lucky: people throw more stuff at you and have another hectic two weeks at least :/. Holiday in a fortnight- small blessings!

4470:

A author of questionable noteworthiness - do you really believe that? Penguin do not publish authors of 'questionable noteworthiness'. There is no COI whatsoever. I like the guy's books and I do stuff about canals (and books). End

1574:

FI did look at the Derbyshire Record Society. I have been toying with becoming a member- looks very up my street. Few things I be interested to read. Interesting future potential outlet for some of my research/writing too, maybe.

1316:

Hello again. Which article are you referring to when you say "It's ok. Just delete it."? If you're having second thoughts about an article you created and don't think it's a viable topic for Knowledge (XXG) after all, you can put

4516:

It strikes me that that there are just too any many people making "value judgments" Delete it if it gives you pleasure. I've got better things to do and probably won't bother making any more contributions. Life's just too short.

2547:

If you're choosing not to disclose your present or past connection to Clout Communications, I'll re-open the COI noticeboard discussion to see what other editors make of it, and what needs to be done about it. Note that, per

470:

You can remove any template you disagree with, unless the template specifically says "this notice must not be removed" or something right there in its box. Looking at the article it seems fine for references, but needs more

4288:. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the 1092:

The Purple Star given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc.

4281:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on

731:

Establishing notability could be harder. A google search is the basic check Knowledge (XXG) will do; all that comes back are websites that are not independent of the company (their website, twitter, facebook etc.).

652:

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chose to warn you about it using Knowledge (XXG)'s standard warning messages, rather than going straight to reporting you for vandalism, as many other editors would have done.

5364: 5202: 5085: 3971: 3895: 1289:

sourcing requirements in order to merit a Knowledge (XXG) article. Merely having published books or written screenplays is not enough, the author has to have been the subject of significant reviews or biographies.

4147:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

3014:

2706: 182:

2936:

Dear User:Picknick99, thanks for the message on my talk page. If you were insulted by the tag, please accept my apologies. It was meant to ensure that reliable sources are added to the article in accordance with

2267:. They're easier for other editors to alter, and if Knowledge (XXG) ever decides that all actor infoboxes should look a little different, we only need to change the template for all the articles to be updated. -- 686:

It's always good to remember Knowledge (XXG) is very much a social project; by the people for the people; all about community. Settlements are important to their inhabitants and notable within their wider area.

3288:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2758:

Not sure which way you're assuming the plagiarism is going, there, but if it looks like a Knowledge (XXG) editor lifted a paragraph verbatim from a source (even if they credited it), then yes, this goes against

4485:

An author being published does not equate to notability. Nor does a single editor "liking a guys books" qualify information for inclusion. It's not a question of what one editor believes; the article on

2636:

themselves. That can either be me, or someone else. Let me know what you think. If you disagree and would like a second opinion on whether or not you have a conflict of interest, then I can raise this at

2506:

might have to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker and Clout Communication, before making any more edits to articles about the company, its staff and clients. (It's been observed that having a merely

727:

The only advice I can give is to stick to pure facts. Just for basic examples: When the company was founded and how(a merger for example?). What industry the company is in, how it operates; what it does.

5007:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4944:

4881:

4818:

4755:

5348:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5186:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5069:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4243:; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Knowledge (XXG). If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: 3955:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3879:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 689:

However, the overwhelming majority of companies are not, with the exception of the larger companies, as most people won't have heard of them; even then people might not consider them "important".

428:

as being your book, or the trade journals you were researching. Sadly a lot of the confectionery articles seem to be on the sketchy side - I suspect they tend to encourage anecdote and nostalgia.

2471:

yours, it's a personal connection and there are COI problems with you doing this. You "are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection" -

4472: 2659:

Okay, I'll check whether any Clout Communications articles should be flagged as having COI issues, and get to cleaning them up over the next few days. Are you okay with the guidance given at

1551:

Derby - which I see does have a Wiki page. Also I added a little bit about Overseal railway sheds. I only ever visited once, a gruelling bike ride from Burton - only to find it utterly empty!

5334: 1285:

Afraid I've never even heard of Google Knowledge Graphs. Regarding Berckman, I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say "demonstrably worthy of inclusion", but an author has to meet

1023:. I really don't care if Picknick99 is insulting me on my user page or on my user talk page--wherever he's doing it, I'm going to scrub it off and ask him not to do it again. Thank you. 2435:

I just try to keep Knowledge (XXG) discussions brief and to-the-point, I assume we all have jobs and wider lives here. I don't mean this to be impolite, and I like to think that I remain

1019:

policy you are citing. You argue that he left his insult in the wrong place. I must then ask you this: Where precisely on Knowledge (XXG) does his insult belong? The answer is that

2324:

I'm not talking about the nature or quality of the photos, I'm just concerned that you uploaded them identifying yourself as "Nicholas Whittaker", and have been editing articles about

525: 276: 175: 3155:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 1778:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 1728:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 902:

I can honestly say I've had more nonsense on wikipedia in this last week or two than I've had in the all the years combined. So your not alone in getting disheartened with it all.

745:

Sometimes I just make the changes and additions myself but I'm afraid I can't with this article: just because I don't know the company and haven't been able find anything online.

1293:(You don't need to start a new heading every time you comment on my talk page, incidentally, it's clearer if you just continue the previous one. And new headings should go at the 942:

No promises I can do anything - if an admin's taken a vendetta against you, you're pretty much screwed -they can be right arseholes when they want to be and there is no comeback.

861:

Thank you again for message. It is appreciated. Qwerty's message spoiled my weekend and I know thar Wiki does not want it to be that way, for anyone, let alone newbies liek me,

248: 4140: 4334:

to create a proper well formatted citation. If any of these urls changed, the reference is broken and it makes it difficult to recreate it, thereby invalidating the article.

621:

Its the whole idea of Knowledge (XXG): no body owns or solely controls the articles - everyone can contribute to create the highest quality, most complete articles possible.

4364:

appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

2961:. The articles are referenced and with their involvement in several films, both seem notable enough to have an article on Knowledge (XXG). I hope this helps. With regards, 115:

Next time you're hassled - you can copy up to 1 chapter of a book, without infringing copyright, so long as it is only for your own uses and won't be published or shared.

5122: 1180: 725:

Its extremely difficult to write about a company without veering onto promotion; at the minute it reads very much as if it is just intended as promotion for its founder.

2953:

Dear User:Picknick99, I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I hope this interaction will give you a more positive experience on Knowledge (XXG). I just looked at

691:

And it's from that standpoint that Knowledge (XXG)'s rules are drafted: Very much community and social minded. Is it important to the wider community? etc. etc. etc.

3577:

I'm not Knowledge (XXG), I'm a humble editor. As you can see below my opinion is right. As far as I know there are lists "to be translated", but I'm not active there.

3106: 3007: 1176: 738:

significantly mentioned)? Even bad publicity is useful: a national newspaper calling a company the worst thing in existence is still coverage in a reliable source.

3728:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

5136:. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. 4490:

is currently flagged, questioning its notability. In other words, the notability hasn't been established. Whether you or I like him or not, again, isn't germane.

3420:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit

3102: 2420:

that, then we can talk about that, ideally at the COI noticeboard link above. But "no, I don't have a COI and I don't like your tone" is a bit of a brick wall. --

1991:

I assume then you have no objection to it being restored, and I will do that. If you disagree after looking at the restored article, let me know on my talk page,

683:

So even a small settlement which will have countless independent pages about its history and inhabitants, where as the overwhelming majority of companies do not.

4361: 4349: 5001: 4938: 4875: 4812: 4749: 2402: 2394: 3665:

If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --

1227:

Where exactly did you get all the "On leaving school he studied mechanical engineering and general technology as an apprentice at Jaguar Cars." stuff from? --

718:

Even with the tags, on the Clout "advertisement" doesn't quite fit; its the promotional rules it's breaking but the tag we're given just says advertisement.

4697: 4622: 4554: 4453:

for further information on these two subjects, to be sure there is no COI, and to understand the limits of inserting promo material in an article. Thanks.

4275: 4129: 3819: 3774: 3495: 3062: 2996: 2728: 2026: 1190: 962: 164: 5557: 1127:

infobox today - is there a problem I can help with there? I can't see any pictures with his name in either on Knowledge (XXG) or on Wikimedia Commons...--

424:

If you can see something in Knowledge (XXG) that looks like it's been lifted uncredited from your book, with no alternative source provided, by all means

3707:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 3078: 3209: 3191: 3152: 3140: 2616:- if Greg Day is an old friend of yours, it was inappropriate for you to have created an article about him, irrespective of any business relationship. 1775: 1763: 515: 5578: 5475: 5294: 5262: 5012: 4949: 4886: 4823: 4760: 4035: 2860: 2229: 1905: 1887: 1725: 1713: 1384: 3074: 1972:

why did you withdraw this article? It seems Ok to me. He's pretty clearly notable, and its adequately documented & could be documented further.

3158:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

1781:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

1731:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

991:

and don't bother to do in depth checks -so try and put is many online references as you can just to protect yourself from the half-arsed brigade.

5519: 5505: 4070:, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on 2042: 4185:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

1266:

If you're taking material from sources, you should cite those sources. And as I say above, I don't know much about image permissions - try the

5020: 4957: 4894: 4831: 4768: 4293: 4289: 4267: 4236: 4071: 3703:

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

3640: 3409: 4693: 4618: 4550: 3815: 3770: 3491: 3058: 2724: 2022: 1186: 984:

Right, I've taken a look at the article; notability is generally judged by having significant coverage from reliable and verifiable sources.

3215:

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply

2038: 1911:

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply

5386: 5216: 5099: 4808: 4799: 3985: 3909: 3313: 5016: 4953: 4890: 4827: 4764: 4248: 4227: 4015: 1503: 1496: 1451: 1420: 1388: 869:

an admin and cannot block you. He can only ask for you to be blocked, but he needs a valid reason. I believe his warning was related to

4611:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

4543:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

3051:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2015:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

4745: 4736: 4067: 4059: 5582: 5479: 4476: 3639:

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

3361: 2864: 2233: 1459:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request 1367:

Also, I suggest retitling the section. Looks like you are addressing the merger proposal. Call the section "Merger proposal". Thanks.

492: 352: 328: 299: 4871: 4862: 812:

Is now up at AfD. Please desist from creating articles that promote Greg Day and his various companies and endeavors. Please read

680:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 475:

to clarify what the interviews are being used for. I've changed the template and added a one-line lede section while I was there. --

4086: 2398: 1362: 288: 244:, you said that you had permission from the copyright holder and could provide it upon request. Please forward that permission to 201: 5121:

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Giada del Drago should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at

4996:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4933:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4870:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4807:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 4744:, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge (XXG) is acceptable. Please go to 2686:

and click through. They've been tagged as needing references and categories, but I'm sure other editors will add those in time. --

1250:

policy isn't just to avoid unscrupulous marketing, it also helps Knowledge (XXG) stay in line with existing, published sources. --

5008: 4997: 4988: 4945: 4882: 4819: 4756: 2683: 1353: 280: 208:

although it is unlikely to go anywhere fast unless someone tries to delete it under notability claims. Speaking of which here is

3454: 324: 213: 5382: 5212: 5095: 4399:

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created

4367:

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

3981: 3905: 3309: 904:

It's supposed to be an opening and welcoming community but far too many just looking to cause problems, vandalise or threaten.

592:

Removing tags that are still relevant is counter productive to the improvement of the article and can be viewed as vandalism.

5357: 5195: 5078: 4175: 3964: 3888: 3233:

code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

2721:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2574:

any further direct communication with you. Your work on other articles is appreciated, and I don't mean to be discouraging. --

1929:

code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

1681: 1673: 1404: 1183:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1143:

know much about the permission process beyond that (I only ever upload CC-licenced images) - if something doesn't make sense,

5290: 4934: 4925: 4690:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4615:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4547:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4274:

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,

3812:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3767:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3488:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3055:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2682:

Your new articles seem fine, and are definitely still there. You can check your own past contributions to Knowledge (XXG) at

2019:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5570: 5523: 5501: 5467: 5422: 5400: 5246:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4178:

tools, as having some issues to fix. Like Knowledge (XXG), IMDb is user edited, and therefore is not a suitable source. See

4019:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 3597: 2852: 2800: 2778: 2490:(I've gone ahead and taken down the COI noticeboard discussion, since it looks like we're now making some progress here.) -- 2221: 2169: 2147: 1113: 626:

In the mean time, if you can bring the article into line with the various policies, you'd be able to stop it being deleted.

367: 987:

reading the entire newspaper for that day). This could be rectified if you could add the title and author of the articles.

5574: 5471: 5251: 4232: 4081: 4024: 2856: 2663:

and happy to restrict your edits on Clout-related articles to what it defines as "Non-controversial edits", in future? --

2225: 1456: 1436: 304: 241: 5142: 317:

articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

5242: 4327: 4133: 3300:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3000: 2570:

you think plagiarism is more serious than COI editing), and you're continuing to edit articles related to the company.

168: 5369: 5207: 5090: 3976: 3900: 3305: 4612: 4544: 3052: 2016: 1411: 3240:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:

1936:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:

790:

No I think it is a bit OTT. It's not written in a a promotional tone and is just stating that the tradition exists.

4682:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3804:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3759:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3480:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2705:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1831: 1689: 1168: 1167:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3394: 2442:

I've tried to point you directly at the most relevant parts of policy to spare you from having to read too much -

1440: 1015:. That's absolutely correct. Picknick99 came to my user page to call me a "snob," a clear violation of the very 360: 356: 205: 4097: 3350: 3383:

has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

2552:, "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is against Knowledge (XXG)'s terms of use. -- 927: 3465: 3098: 1507: 216:

and as you can see from those two links there are a few more notability guidelines. Finally for now please see

5345: 5183: 5066: 4179: 3952: 3876: 3554: 2813: 2507: 2182: 5492: 4645: 4378: 3615: 3601: 3521: 1842:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1623:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

551: 5133: 3729: 3169: 2839: 2760: 1792: 1742: 1432: 279:

your contributions to Knowledge (XXG), but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things

217: 209: 3760: 3697: 3679: 3428: 3365: 3342: 3327: 1054: 885: 351:

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to

159: 143: 5586: 5483: 4446: 3704: 3644: 3301: 3234: 3168:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

2868: 2660: 2472: 2237: 1930: 1791:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

1741:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

1267: 1144: 574: 366:

For information on how to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) when you have a conflict of interest, please see

5454: 5302: 4339: 4319: 2260: 1584: 1098: 997: 974: 949: 806: 796: 780: 759: 703: 665: 635: 615:

I'm afraid I didn't come up with Knowledge (XXG)'s rules and policies, but all users are bound by them.

603: 226: 124: 99: 71: 17: 5132:

is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on

4190: 2641: 1011: 932: 5603: 2796: 2782: 5112: 4430: 4417: 4093: 3346: 3258: 3180: 1876: 1803: 1753: 1658: 1374: 5328: 5170: 5053: 4375:

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:

3939: 3921: 3863: 3845: 3623: 3619: 3277: 3268: 2821:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

2609: 2443: 2366: 2351: 2190:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1431:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

1419:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge (XXG). This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

582: 573:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge (XXG). Your edits appear to constitute

5598: 5418: 5404: 4568: 4203: 4186: 3460: 1636:'The Crown Estate'' Doubleday 1976. Published as 'The Blessed Plot', Hamish Hamilton. London, 1976 1531: 1481: 5532: 5341: 5179: 5062: 3948: 3872: 3732:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 3297: 3281: 3162: 1867:

and book illustration. The connection of his mother and elder brother (Charles Kerrison Sala) with

1855:

to 1842, and learnt drawing in London, and in his earlier years he did odd-jobs in scene-painting

1785: 1735: 5488: 4278:, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). 3036: 3020: 2904: 2876: 2768: 2691: 2668: 2649: 2579: 2557: 2534: 2518: 2495: 2480: 2460: 2425: 2410: 2374: 2337: 2325: 2311: 2292: 2272: 2245: 2208: 1966: 1332: 1321: 1306: 1275: 1255: 1232: 1152: 1132: 547: 480: 460: 437: 411: 395: 375: 284: 2941:. Thanks for your contributions to Knowledge (XXG) and best wishes in the future. With regards, 2637: 2623: 2436: 1455:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1298: 1286: 1221: 1077: 1016: 858:

And by the way, what makes qwerty an admin and not you - or even me? Who decides these things?

303:

that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by

292: 4124: 4108: 5553: 5450: 5028: 4965: 4902: 4839: 4776: 4713: 4668: 4597: 4168: 4153: 3835: 3790: 3655: 3511: 3130: 3070: 2914: 2835: 2744: 2204: 2082: 1206: 1043: 874: 90:

I was born in the hospital; so I could in someways be classed as a Burtonian or Staffy maybe?

5353: 5191: 5074: 4993: 4930: 4867: 4804: 4741: 4157: 3960: 3884: 3293: 3285: 3216: 1644:

s End'' Doubleday 1977. Previously appeared as Be All and End All: H. Hamilton, London, 1976

1460: 1428: 813: 338: 5376: 5298: 4487: 4335: 4301: 3744: 3669: 2628:"expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Knowledge (XXG)" 1912: 1580: 1094: 1028: 993: 970: 945: 844: 825: 792: 776: 755: 699: 661: 631: 599: 310:

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

222: 120: 95: 67: 5540: 5437: 5356:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5349: 5194:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5187: 5129: 5077:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5070: 5019:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

4956:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

4893:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

4830:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

4767:

and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the

4450: 3963:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3956: 3887:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3880: 3693: 3628: 3415: 3390: 3386: 3380: 3323: 3296:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3289: 3205: 2822: 2809: 2549: 2329: 2191: 2178: 1901: 1424: 1247: 817: 538: 506: 425: 5270: 4518: 4426: 4413: 4043: 3582: 3562: 3544: 3532: 3254: 3176: 3148: 2921: 2136: 1872: 1823: 1799: 1771: 1749: 1721: 1697: 1654: 1612: 1604: 1552: 1370: 677:

With regards your query about the notablity of villages, the criteria is for articles is:

5430: 5247: 4276:

requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license

4020: 2938: 2332:

strongly discourages. Are you the Nicholas Whittaker that you have been writing about? --

1701: 4683: 4630: 4562: 5590: 4651: 4495: 4458: 4409: 4194: 3481: 2259:

Have noticed that you've been somehow hand-crafting infoboxes for articles, such as on

1515: 1465: 1357: 1172: 578: 5539:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

5436:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

3648: 3633: 3398: 3250:, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission. 2601: 1423:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

908:

just moving it, these people would prefer to threaten "you'll be blocked and banned"!

650:

When tags are being unjustifiably removed, it can quite easily appear like vandalism.

337:

to the Knowledge (XXG) article or website of your organization in other articles (see

4704: