685:. From what I could see in the back and forth above, it seemed to me that the COI was maybe a perceived one based on the article's sourcing or how you wrote about it? Which is why I assumed a second editor with fresh eyes could be helpful and then those concerns could be the laid to rest type of buried not hidden or obfuscated, which was never my intention. I am sorry my naivete and assumptions made things worse for you. I have asymmetrical knowledge concerning Knowledge (XXG), knowing a lot about the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies and knowing less about how I can personally be a good volunteer without relying on the patience and help of the good volunteers around me.
207:, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.
226:
I am afraid the promotional material is very much there. I am afraid I am still of the opinion that the article passes through AFC. Furthermore I’m seeing something from some tools I use in nabbing possible spam and I’m quite concerned, please I need you to confirm this, have you by any chance used more than one account to edit
Knowledge (XXG)? or are you currently using more than one account simultaneously? Tools can be faulty so I need an express reply on this.
579:
627:
368:
720:
coverage I had seen on their scrupulosity show. If it does come up again and my context might be helpful, please link this explanation and if further clarifications are warranted, please @ or emailthisuser me (I am only sporadically logged in, so emails are best to flag timely on-wiki discussions). Sorry again for my original meddling and then disappearing act. I hope you have
596:. 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
225:
I’m afraid the message you got first is auto generated, it is a template message for anyone who has their articles moved to draft. The second message is me explaining the reason personally & not a bot. I never mentioned anything about being paid or not, I refereed to a possible COI. Unfortunately
24:
I am Petros
Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Knowledge (XXG). You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested
688:
I still stand by my first tweet to you last year: "If I'd known we had a
Wikipedian-in-residence at BYU, I think that could have helped my volunteer trajectory! I'd rabbit hole too much in how-to/policy pages rather than edit, perfectionism rather than being bold? Experienced editors around to say
704:
it makes sense that you assumed it was a notability issue, because that is the reason the other editor gave for moving it to the draftspace. I should have disclosed my COI more directly. I support the ARCH-HIVE on
Patreon, I have contributed several articles to their blog, and I have contributed
719:
If the page comes up in the future, I just want it to be clear that you received unsolicited/uninformed encouragement from me to post the article the second time. From the time that had passed, it looked like you were going to leave it as a draft and I thought that was a shame due to the media
270:
Apologies, I was too busy to check your UP, I’m sorry I heavily multi task, I was preoccupied so much so that I hadn’t the time to check if you openly declared that you had a second account and had to rely on public tools(your first edit with this account) to make an educated guess that it is
676:
I am irredeemably late to the ANI discussion, having only just stumbled upon it by way of stumbling upon an old
Wikipediocracy thread. I am so sorry for originally digging up your Arch-Hive draft and mistakenly assuming it was mostly a notability issue that could be
137:, winning an award qualifies it under "(c) won significant critical attention." I do use primary sources on the page, but they are not used to establish notability. Self-published sources are allowed as a source about the subject material under
705:
amateur art pieces to two of their zines. I should have known that even if I don't make money from my contributions to the ARCH-HIVE, it is still a COI. Please don't feel responsible for anything that happened surrounding my topic ban.
163:, if this isn’t the case please I need you to expressly refute this, in your response. Secondly, if you claim no COI, there is a major problem of the (article) reading like a “page” as opposed to an encyclopedic article, please see
323:
There's no particular rush... I just thought it would be more efficient to deal with the person who made the original complaint against the article, so I could address the specific issues you had. thanks for the reply.
271:
plausible you had other accounts. Self trout right there, having said, I still believe AFC isn’t a bad idea or Are you in a haste? The whole article reads like a resumé of the organization, the sources you optimize are
179:, this article in its current state can not be on mainspace. I note you know policy, so I hope you understand me when I say this isn’t mainspace worthy, I encourage you once mor, to use the AFC method of submission.
689:
things are good enough helps" — I'll add that finding you on twitter (an experienced
Knowledge (XXG) editor with similar background!) was immensely encouraging. Late on all accounts, but thank you for existing.
541:
428:
631:
437:
539:! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
250:, which I use for the Knowledge (XXG) editing I do for my job. Could you tell me in a little more detail what the promotional material is that you're referring to?
485:
446:
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
681:. I also should have asked on-wiki about whether I could help with the draft rather than on twitter, and I should have phrased my confusion differently about the
529:
608:
478:
415:
460:
If you now believe the draft cannot meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
25:
in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on
Knowledge (XXG), you can click on this link
92:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s
374:
355:
421:
505:
662:
555:, a friendly space on Knowledge (XXG) where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
433:
130:
592:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
597:
593:
710:
639:
299:. I’m sorry I wouldn’t be replying anymore. As I already have too much on my plate. To write better worded articles see
588:
396:
96:
and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
678:
658:
440:
when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for
Knowledge (XXG).
377:
has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by
Slywriter were:
729:
706:
694:
635:
247:
432:
of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see
403:
85:
310:
233:
186:
103:
272:
138:
551:
477:
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
284:
276:
35:
560:
515:
57:
49:
39:
300:
134:
725:
690:
287:
per se. You see, all you need do is submit the article and it would be reviewed accordingly. See
168:
305:
228:
204:
181:
114:
98:
474:" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
392:
296:
292:
288:
172:
164:
176:
118:
93:
616:
461:
454:
359:
380:
280:
71:
65:
61:
26:
657:, you are indefinitely topic banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed.
556:
511:
468:
388:
81:
77:
721:
129:, both of which are independent, reliable sources. Their zines won an award from the
325:
251:
208:
142:
528:
33:
367:
60:, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
612:
20:
Survey about History on Knowledge (XXG) (If you reside in the United States)
303:
except you are in a hurry, I don’t know what the haste is. Peace Profound.
444:
Sources appear to be mostly Primary. Need independent secondary sourcing
549:
questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
32:
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos,
733:
714:
698:
666:
643:
634:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
620:
564:
519:
333:
314:
259:
237:
216:
190:
150:
107:
43:
453:
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
133:. I think an art collective is similar to an artist, and under
724:
as you continue your editing journey following the topic ban.
506:
Knowledge (XXG)'s real-time chat help from experienced editors
488:
associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the
577:
366:
410:
coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in
402:
This submission's references do not show that the subject
464:, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "
76:
Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
654:
574:
Orphaned non-free image File:Archkeeper wikipedia 2.png
498:
490:
682:
27:
https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8
632:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
457:
and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
159:
hello there, I have drafitified chiefly because of a
29:. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
484:
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any
175:. I think You may need to pass this article through
607:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
246:Yes, on my user page I mention my other account,
391:. If you need help with referencing, please see
387:sources are required so that information can be
379:This submission is not adequately supported by
609:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
603:Note that any non-free images not used in any
84:on Knowledge (XXG)). I've moved your draft to
8:
171:, not speedy deletion worthy, but far from
117:, what about the article does not fulfill
404:qualifies for a Knowledge (XXG) article
121:? The collective's work is covered in
161:possible conflict of interest editing
7:
630:There is currently a discussion at
442:The comment the reviewer left was:
373:Your recent article submission to
14:
283:. On Knowledge (XXG) there is no
56:An article you recently created,
625:
527:
589:File:Archkeeper wikipedia 2.png
542:Articles for creation help desk
492:Articles for creation help desk
131:Association for Mormon Letters
1:
722:fair winds and following seas
621:03:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
598:our policy for non-free media
565:13:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
520:13:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
334:03:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
315:02:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
260:02:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
238:01:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
217:01:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
191:23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
151:22:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
108:21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
44:17:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
16:This is Rwelean's talk page.
448:when they have been resolved
119:general notability guideline
94:general notability guideline
406:—that is, they do not show
295:, ensure to get rid of all
752:
667:12:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
644:16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
734:22:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
715:19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
699:07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
578:
393:Referencing for beginners
167:, Also, I note excessive
329:
255:
212:
146:
679:helped with new sources
583:
371:
659:ScottishFinnishRadish
636:~~ AirshipJungleman29
586:Thanks for uploading
581:
375:Articles for Creation
370:
356:Articles for creation
500:reviewer's talk page
123:Provo Music Magazine
683:original COI claims
655:this ANI discussion
354:Your submission at
88:(with a prefix of "
66:independent sources
52:moved to draftspace
707:Rachel Helps (BYU)
584:
545:. If you have any
372:
248:Rachel Helps (BYU)
82:central importance
594:claim of fair use
571:
570:
486:untoward behavior
438:mistakes to avoid
426:sources that are
75:
743:
629:
628:
580:
531:
524:
523:
503:
495:
473:
467:
436:and learn about
381:reliable sources
91:
69:
751:
750:
746:
745:
744:
742:
741:
740:
674:
651:
626:
611:. Thank you. --
576:
567:
522:
497:
489:
471:
465:
462:Draft:Arch-Hive
455:Draft:Arch-Hive
445:
441:
400:
364:
89:
54:
22:
12:
11:
5:
749:
747:
739:
738:
737:
736:
673:
670:
650:
647:
575:
572:
569:
568:
534:
532:
510:
509:
482:
479:may be deleted
475:
458:
443:
434:technical help
401:
397:Citing sources
378:
365:
363:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
318:
317:
263:
262:
241:
240:
220:
219:
196:
195:
194:
193:
154:
153:
53:
47:
21:
18:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
748:
735:
731:
727:
726:MossAlbatross
723:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
691:MossAlbatross
686:
684:
680:
671:
669:
668:
664:
660:
656:
648:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
601:
599:
595:
591:
590:
573:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
548:
544:
543:
538:
533:
530:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
507:
502:
501:
494:
493:
487:
483:
480:
476:
470:
463:
459:
456:
452:
451:
449:
439:
435:
431:
430:
425:
424:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
376:
369:
362:(February 22)
361:
357:
353:
335:
331:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
231:
230:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
192:
188:
184:
183:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
101:
100:
95:
87:
83:
79:
78:verifiability
73:
67:
63:
59:
58:The ARCH-HIVE
51:
50:The ARCH-HIVE
48:
46:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
28:
19:
17:
687:
675:
652:
624:
604:
602:
587:
585:
550:
546:
540:
536:
499:
491:
447:
427:
422:
416:
411:
407:
384:
306:Celestina007
304:
273:WP:COISOURCE
229:Celestina007
227:
205:Celestina007
182:Celestina007
180:
160:
139:WP:ABOUTSELF
126:
122:
115:Celestina007
99:Celestina007
97:
55:
31:
23:
15:
429:independent
408:significant
285:WP:DEADLINE
279:& not
277:WP:PRIMARY
86:draftspace
649:Topic ban
557:Slywriter
512:Slywriter
496:, on the
423:secondary
412:published
360:Arch-Hive
301:WP:BETTER
135:WP:ARTIST
36:Apolo1991
672:Sorry :(
605:articles
552:Teahouse
417:reliable
389:verified
385:Reliable
169:WP:PROMO
127:15 Bytes
62:reliable
537:Rwelean
535:Hello,
504:or use
326:Rwelean
297:WP:LARD
293:WP:NPOV
289:WP:TONE
252:Rwelean
209:Rwelean
173:WP:NPOV
165:WP:TONE
143:Rwelean
291:&
177:WP:AFC
90:Draft:
80:is of
613:B-bot
547:other
469:Db-g7
281:WP:IS
730:talk
711:talk
695:talk
663:talk
653:Per
640:talk
617:talk
561:talk
516:talk
395:and
330:talk
311:talk
256:talk
234:talk
213:talk
187:talk
147:talk
125:and
104:talk
40:talk
600:).
203:Hi
113:Hi
732:)
713:)
697:)
665:)
642:)
619:)
563:)
518:)
472:}}
466:{{
450:.
420:,
414:,
383:.
358::
332:)
313:)
275:,
258:)
236:)
215:)
189:)
149:)
141:.
106:)
68:.
64:,
42:)
728:(
709:(
693:(
661:(
638:(
615:(
582:âš
559:(
514:(
508:.
481:.
399:.
328:(
309:(
254:(
232:(
211:(
185:(
145:(
102:(
74:)
72:?
70:(
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.