User talk:KnowledgeIsPower9281

CS1 error on Wanamaker Mile

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wanamaker Mile, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi KnowledgeIsPower9281, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Habst (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested WikiProject

Hey KnowledgeIsPower9281—thanks for your recent contributions! I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's athletics / track and field content and thought you might be interested in the athletics WikiProject. We've done some great work (11 pieces of Featured content and over 25 Good articles), but with over 70,000 created articles to improve and many more to still be created, there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page, or let me know if I can help with anything by replying to this message. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. --Habst (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bowerman Mile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gudaf Tsegay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Penn Relays Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Penn Relays Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Nike Indoor Nationals

Hello KnowledgeIsPower9281, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Nike Indoor Nationals, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Indoor Nationals.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CanonNi}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Split time ranking

I reverted your split time ranking in the article Femke Bol, because the information was not in the source that was referenced for that paragraph. If you could provide a reliable source for the ranking, I think it would be interesting to add. – Editør (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1500 metres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josh Kerr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eric Gilbertson (climber)

The article Eric Gilbertson (climber) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page feels WP:TOOSOON. Sources are almost exclusively from single source (ExplorersWeb).The AAJ article is by him. Gilbertson has made some achievements but not yet sufficient (and/or significant coverage) to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabrils (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Gilbertson (climber) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Gilbertson (climber) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Conflict of interest reminder

Hello KnowledgeIsPower9281 and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is a friendly reminder that if you are or have a relationship with Eric Gilbertson (climber), you need to declare such on your user page. Furthermore, if this is the case then for the purposes of your editing updated elevation data determined by him and his team would constitute original research and should not be added directly by yourself. If this is the case, you are more than welcome to open a discussion regarding such on relevant talk pages to encourage or recommend an edit.

More information on conflict of interest expectations and declarations can be found at WP:COI and WP:COISELF.

Thanks! DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DJ Cane, COI declaration has been added. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eric Gilbertson Country Highpoints: Order Climbed

Template:Eric Gilbertson Country Highpoints: Order Climbed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello, I'm Graywalls. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eric Gilbertson (climber), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://www.countryhighpoints.com/ is the article subject's own website. Per WP:RS, someone's own website should be used very, very sparingly. Graywalls (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello KnowledgeIsPower9281. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:KnowledgeIsPower9281. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=KnowledgeIsPower9281|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. The nature of various articles you have created gives an impression that you're creating those articles on behalf of others for compensation. If so, the name of the company/person paying you, and the name of the client must be disclosed. This must be done for each and every article for which you are being compensated for. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Graywalls, as stated in my COI disclosure, I am not being financially compensated for my edits, directly or indirectly. I have done these edits in my free time and as a hobby. My reasoning for doing so is to improve Wikipedia's accuracy in the topics I have edited (highpointing and athletics). While I have talked with Gilbertson about highpointing, neither he, nor anyone else, is paying me to edit Wikipedia on their behalf. I am doing these edits entirely on my own accord and wanting to do so. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The reason for this message was not for the climber. It is because I've noticed you created articles on corporate sponsored events only using sources controlled by the host. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Graywalls, just to clarify, what I said before also applies to any article I have created/edited on a track meet or track league like Grand Slam Track, Athlos, HOKA Festival of Miles, Nike Indoor/Outdoor Nationals, and Brooks PR Invitational. I created/edited these articles because Wikipedia was missing information on them and they are important in the world of high school or pro running. Once again, other than my unpaid COI with Eric, my editing is entirely independent and done on my own volition, not sponsored or paid by any organizations. A lot of these events only had self-sources, which, in retrospect, I realize violates WP policy. Thank you for your understanding and removing the articles which violate WP policy. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uzbekistan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. It's been generally agreed that "countryhightpoints.com" by Eric Gilbertson (climber) which whom you've acknowledge COI is not a reliable source. Please stop introducing this source as reference. Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How about Peakbagger as a source without the blog? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious the intention is to introduce any contents with Eric Gilbertson linked information into articles. The Peakbagger source you added included. Since it's still a user generated source, I'm not too keen on it. There are many sources, like WP:NYPOST and WP:MEDIUM used in many articles. Those sources are generally unacceptable. Being found in many articles is not an indication it's good. Since Peakbagger is a self published source based on user provided info, I'm opposed to it. I linked to the prior WP:RSN discussion on that somewhere. Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, please remember WP:Assume good faith. I am not trying to be disruptive; my intention is to improve Wikipedia's accuracy as Khazret Sultan is not the highest point in Uzbekistan. Though I removed Eric's blog as a source, you are entitled to your opinion of Peakbagger and/or Peakery not being reliable sources. Even though I have a COI with him my intention is to improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia, so please do not accuse me of changing the Uzbekistan article to simply promote his work. It just so happens that he is the one who determined Alpomish as being higher than Khazret Sultan. Rather than keep outdated information on there, the best option would be to find an independent secondary source mentioning Alpomish, which may not exist if you consider peakbagger as unreliable in this instance. It would be best to get a consensus from other editors though on Alpomish vs. Khazret Sultan, not just you and I. Thank you. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good faith is assumed, but please see WP:GFISNOT. Every or essentially all insertions of Countryhighpoint.com appear to be from you and the repeated insertions of his blog/website have led multiple people to question intentions in relation to Eric Gilbertson and it seems like the peakbagger you've been inserting generally contain data attributed to Eric Gilbertson. You did declare conflict-of-interest. I am not really sure what the conflict-of-interest is, but are you willing to elaborate more on the nature of the relationship?

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_362#Is_Peakbagger.com_a_reliable_source? Peakbagger is a controversial source. No consensus on its usability. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not true as Gilbertson's website has been used as references before I even started editing Wikipedia. I created articles on country highpoints he determined because they were in peakbagger and did not have coverage on the encyclopedia. I had previously thought peakbagger to be a sufficient source for WP as many articles use it as a reference.

I'm not sure what you don't understand as other editors seem fine with my declaration. If you specifically need clarification, I am not Gilbertson, there are no financial incentives, and there is no family connection. As a highpointer myself I have simply talked with him about highpointing and that includes his surveys.

As I have said to you before, my intentions of creating country highpoint articles or adding info on his surveys were not to promote Gilbertson's work. They were to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia. With that said, I created the WP article on Gilbertson because I thought his achievements warranted a WP article. This conversation is going in circles and I will no longer insert his website as a source, but still believe that reliable, independent secondary sources on his work are sufficient for WP. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If WP policy considers peakbagger and his blog to be unreliable sources, I will of course listen.

However, do not spin my conflict of interest into something it is not. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that your edits appear to be promotional. You are continually editing around the subject of Gilbertson and spamming links to his blog. The fact that you are doing so without being paid by Gilbertson is neither here or there, it is still unacceptable.

You are continually encountering resistance in relation to these edits from other users. Some of the edits are being reverted, and articles you have created are being nominated for deletion. Your promotional activity is thus taking up a large amount of volunteer time simply to undo what you are doing.

You have also clearly recruited Gilbertson to set up an account as a WP:MEATPUPPET to push the same agenda.

For info, most editors engaged in promotional editing claim, as you have done above, that their intentions were not to promote [x]. They were to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia. Even people working for PR companies or editing about themselves say just the same thing. Axad12 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, while we have talked and while he created an account to illustrate his point of view, I have agreed to no longer edit in this matter, so I don't understand why it is an issue other than the time it takes to revert the edits. Please suggest a solution so that this conversation does not go in circles and we can all stop pointing fingers. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible suggestion: you revert the edits? Axad12 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair. At this point it seems most of the work has been done as most edits have been reverted and most (if not all) of the articles will be deleted. The only thing I will say is that his findings can be included in Wikipedia if they have significant secondary coverage, but given that I have a COI I will from now on refrain from doing that directly and go to other editors first. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify a comment I said above (22:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)), my editing is entirely independent and done on my own volition, including with my unpaid COI with Eric. Of course, my talking with Eric has an influence on my opinion (thus a conflict of interest), but my editing is still done independently and I am the one deciding the edits I do. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Athlos moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Athlos. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Navy crash

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Mount Rainier regarding the recent Navy plane crash. While the media is reporting this as being "near Mount Rainier," it appears it is more in the remote mountains between Rimrock Lake and Bumping Lake. This content is probably better suited for a different mountain page (though I don't think the specific mountian has been released yet) and/or Okanogan–Wenatchee National Forest. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DJ Cane! I was just was looking through some sources. This source, USA Today, showed the search plane going around an area just to the east of Rainier NP in Yakima County, so it seems relatively close to Rainier. Won't change anything until you respond. Roughly over William Douglas Wilderness. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the William Douglas Wilderness is accurate based on the search plane routes displayed on USA Today and other sources. I 100% think this is notable enough to include in some article (and that the text you had in Mount Rainier was appropriate other than being too far away), but until we hear what specific location this crash happened at it's hard to say where it should go. I think the best course of action is to hold the paragraph in your sandbox for future use. Thank you for understanding and for your response. I hope you're not feeling too beat down after the last few days. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 00:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you!

Not at all! It's good experience that sharpens me as a Wikipedia editor. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mont Atilakoutse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mont Atilakoutse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Atilakoutse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Graywalls (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Alpomish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alpomish, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpomish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sare Firasu Hill

The article Sare Firasu Hill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've found that the highest location in Gambia is 53m, which one source says is Red rock, and Worldatlas.com says is an unnamed hill. However, there's no credible source calling it Sara Firasu Hill, so deletion seems to be the proper action

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leklata

The article Leklata has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I would have re-directed if I could find a reliably published, reliable source attributing Leklata to Ghana or Togo, but I am only finding bloggy personal websites and other user generated aggregator websites and when it can't be reliably established that Leklata is a name attributed to Ghana in reliably published sources, it isn't appropriate to redirect and it should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Highest points of Africa

Template:Highest points of Africa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For your level headed attitude during the discussions related to highpointing recently, including getting involved in cleaning up articles that weren't discussed. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yomif Kejelcha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laredo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on IShowSpeed

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page IShowSpeed, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Luke Nichols

Hello KnowledgeIsPower9281, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Luke Nichols, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nichols.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Frost}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Frost 12:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gout Gout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Jakob Ingebrigtsen

I noticed you have listed Jakob Ingebrigtsen for GA review. I am currently reviewing another article, so for now I will give you some quick pointers: you may want to look at MOS:ALT, MOS:DTAB (table captions, col headers with scopes, row headers with scopes), format the personal bests in the infobox according to the infobox's documentation (event: time (year, record)), and add source references for all the records in the Achievements section. – Editør (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@KnowledgeIsPower9281, just a quick reminder in case you missed it before. – Editør (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Eric Gilbertson (climber) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eric Gilbertson (climber). Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Eric Gilbertson (climber) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eric Gilbertson (climber). Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Luke Nichols

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Luke Nichols requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nichols. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric Gilbertson (climber) has been accepted

Eric Gilbertson (climber), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I would STRONGLY suggest you stop editing Eric Gilbertson (climber) directly and use the edit request system on the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Theroadislong,

Will do and I apologize for any COI editing I did that was disruptive. Since the article's acceptance into the mainspace I added links from other articles and two redirects so that it wasn't an orphan.

When the article was a draft, I stated to contributors like DJ Cane I would not do any COI edits pertaining to content. When the article was accepted today, I first did those two uncontroversial COI edits pertaining to categories and grammar. I apologize for my third COI edit where I removed that multiple issues template.

Moving forward I won't edit the article directly at all unless there is an uncontroversial change that WP:COIADVICE permits COI editors to correct. In retrospect, I realise why my removal of the multiple issues template was not uncontroversial and I will no longer do any disruptive edits to the page.

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify how the removal of tags from the article was not pertaining to content?

Surely it is self-evident that the tags pertain to article content. If not then what else are they supposed to pertain to? Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

When I said pertaining to content, I meant in terms of adding/removing content.

It was my own self-assessment of the article that I thought it was fine with the current sources, but I understand why the COI gives bias and won't do an edit like that again. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not, I note, the first time that you have made such a commitment...

Let us hope that you don't get a little too excited [1] again and make any further impulsive/disruptive edits [2].

Much better, I think, if you were to voluntarily undertake to stop editing altogether in relation to Gilbertson (whether that be directly or via COI edit requests). Axad12 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea as no productive work for the encyclopedia will get done through edit warring and disputes, especially with my COI. I also don't want this to affect my ability to edit other articles on Wikipedia, so I agree it's best to walk away.

I still have my opinion and reservations about him being noteworthy enough for his own article (and if not this, a mention on the highpointing article), but if Gilbertson turns out to be considered notable through the general consensus (or becomes notable through more media coverage as he gets closer to climbing every country highpoint in the world), other editors will add info on him whether it be his own article or a mention on other articles.

Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Gilbertson (climber) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Gilbertson (climber) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

KnowledgeIsPower, I note that you have added some info re: your COI to Eric Gilbertson on the Eric Gilbertson talk page [3].

Given the likelihood of that article (and talk page) once again being deleted I wondered if you would consider adding the relevant material to your own talk page here? Axad12 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Extra COI info

• Lifted from Talk:Eric Gilbertson (climber).

@KnowledgeIsPower9281:, you've indicated you have COI. What is the nature of your relationship and conflict of interest with Eric Gilbertson? Whether or not you're being paid specifically on an itemized basis to work on Wikipedia, is this being done as part of your professional role or a contract? Admin 331dot confirmed it would be okay for me to ask this. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Graywalls,

As I've stated previously, I am not paid to edit Wikipedia and am a volunteer like most Wikipedia editors. I have no professional role or contract with Gilbertson, or anyone else. My reasoning for drafting a new article on him and submitting it through AfC was because I personally believed his achievements warranted inclusion in the encyclopedia.

My relationship with Gilbertson is through highpointing. As a highpointer myself, I have talked with him online about the activity numerous times and thus I have a conflict of interest and bias since Eric knows I have a Wikipedia account. With that said, my Wikipedia edits are mine alone; I choose what I want to edit, and am not actively being told how or what to edit by Gilbertson (or anyone else).

Eric isn't actively emailing me telling me what to change on Wikipedia, and he isn't involved (except for the Rainier survey a few months ago - more info below). Of course, he has a vested interest in his surveys and would want them to be on Wikipedia, but the reason I have added Gilbertson-related content was because I personally thought his achievements/surveys warranted coverage on Wikipedia since the Rainier one had significant media coverage. Gilbertson did not pay me or aggressively try and get me to make any changes; the only off-wiki collaboration pertained to his Rainier survey a couple months back, where he suggested changes that I agreed with. To clarify, I initially changed the Rainier results on my own after seeing Gilbertson's survey and resulting media coverage. When Gilbertson saw this was changed back to the standard value, he reached out to me asking if I was the one who made the original change, which is when he proposed his changes to the Rainier article that I (mostly) agreed with.

Through this entire ordeal I've gotten a much better grasp on what constitutes good sourcing on Wikipedia and have gained lots of experience as an editor.

In summary, the conflict of interest more so pertains to Gilbertson's Rainier survey done a few months back than it does with his personal Wikipedia article, which he had no involvement in creating. The creation of his Wikipedia article (and associated content on other articles related to Gilbertson) was entirely my doing, though the COI still creates a natural bias in favor of Gilbertson. During this second attempt, I have done my best to use proper sourcing.

Thank you for understanding and Happy New Year. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain the appearance of an account calling itself 'Eric Gilbertson' at the talk page for Mount Rainier back in October 2024 [4]? That account appeared at exactly the same time that you appeared there to promote Gilbertson, and made basically the same point that you were making.

Was this unexpected appearance by Mr Gilbertson WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY?

Evidently it cannot be a matter of coincidence for Gilbertson and the creator of an article about Gilbertson to have both appeared at that talk age at the same time - so either the same user was manipulating both accounts or there was off-wiki canvassing.

Your clarification here would be appreciated.

It seems that the obviously co-ordinated behaviour of these two accounts indicates that the conflict of interest between yourself and Gilbertson is significantly more than you have indicated above. Axad12 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That account was Gilbertson's. During that discussion about the Rainier survey, it came up if he should make a Wikipedia account to explain his perspective. So he made one. I didn't tell him what to say and what he said was his own opinion.

Again, I made the Gilbertson article on my own and I made the initial Rainier survey changes on my own. It was when the changes were reverted that Eric reached out. I did not have any collaboration with Eric's dad Keith either; Keith Gilbertson must have noticed the creation of a WP article about Eric and went to add the picture. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So, what appears to have happened here is that you started making suggestions about how the measurement of Mount Rainier should be presented on Wikipedia here [5] on 13th Oct.

You then contacted Gilbertson off-Wiki, presumably tipping him off about the on-Wiki discussion, and he created an account and commented in great detail on the issue here [6] on 16th Oct and here [7] on 17th Oct.

Then later on the 17th you opened a new thread trying to impose a consensus to reflect your opinion and that of Gilbertson, here [8] and here [9].

This is blatant WP:MEATPUPPETRY in an attempt to manipulate a consensus. You have lied repeatedly about your connection with Gilbertson and quite frankly your behaviour here brings Wikipedia into disrepute.

You have also introduced into article mainspace the original Gilbertson article that was twice declined at AfC and also spammed Gilbertson's work all over Wikipedia using inappropriate sources. Frankly this looks very much like the behaviour of a close associate or even possibly an undeclared paid editor. The fact that you have been in direct contact with Gilbertson (for reasons which reman entirely unexplained, except that you were tipping him off about the Mount Rainer talk page discussion) only strengthens the impression of highly inappropriate COI editing and repeated lies. I therefore ask you to straightforwardly explain your association with Gilbertson. Presumably you did not simply approach him over Zoom with a view to discussing a thread on a Wikipedia talk page.

If there is any repetition of the conduct outlined above, or any other COI behaviour in relation to Gilbertson or highpointing or any other aspect of people measuring the heights of mountains then I will personally report you to WP:ANI with a view to getting your account blocked.

(Copying in Graywalls.) Axad12 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My association with Gilbertson is as a highpointer. I have talked with him about the sport for years. Gilbertson found out I had a Wikipedia account when I expanded the highpointing article, asking if I was the one who changed it.

When I changed the Rainier survey height on my own, and when he saw the changes were reverted, he reached out to me asking if I made the original change. And thus the COI lies there. He naturally got involved in the thread as a result of our discussions and I acknowledge that as a Wikipedia editor this was wrong. I sincerely apologize for any WP:MEATPUPPETRY behavior and promise it will not happen again.

As for the Gilbertson draft, I submitted it through AfC and it passed. I did that submission in good faith and didn't insert any Gilbertson-related content until it passed AfC. As for the removal of that template, I mentioned please revert if disputed, so I did my best to do that in good faith as well even though I recognize it as a disruptive edit now. The reason I added Gilbertson-related content to other articles was in good faith and to prevent his own article from being an orphan, though I understand why that may look promotional with my COI.

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not paid in any way to edit Wikipedia and am a volunteer. I will stop inserting any Gilbertson-related content. Gilbertson is no longer involved with anything on Wikipedia (his only involvement being the Rainier survey), so there is no reason to block my account as I will not conduct my editing in the manner outlined above.

I do a lot of good faith editing and hard work on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if you recognize that fact and that I am ready to move on from this Gilbertson issue. I have learned a lot through making these mistakes and believe that makes me a better Wikipedia editor than I was before. Lastly, on your talk page, I did ask kindly for an explanation on why he can't be mentioned on the highpointing article. My reasoning for doing so was in good faith as I believe he deserves a mention through his achievements in the sport.

Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, now provided at my talk page.

For the record, I was referring above to the original Gilbertson article that was deleted following this AfD [10] after having been twice declined at AfC before you brought it into mainspace yourself, disregarding the AfC results. That single act resulted in several editors (including myself) not feeling required to extend the assumption of good faith in your Gilbertson-related activities - and that probably set in motion the series of events that have brought us here.

But as you quite rightly say, it is a learning experience... so the underlying theme here is hopefully a positive one.

If you feel that you have experienced rough handling over this then I'm more than happy to apologise, but hopefully you appreciate that the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, and the value of the whole enterprise as an ongoing project, is dependent on material being reliably and independently sourced and authored by users with no conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I do appreciate Wikipedia's reputation/integrity and in some articles I have edited not pertaining to highpointing, I've removed promotional/unsourced/unverifiable content I have seen. In retrospect, I can see that my COI blinded me and the resulting bias in favor of Gilbertson lowered my editing standards for that specific topic, which is probably one of the reasons why WP restricts COI editing, even if edits were in good faith.

No need to apologize as you are doing what's best for the encyclopedia.

Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to request a "speedy deletion" rather than just letting AfD close out on its own? Courtesy ping to @Axad12: Graywalls (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering this too.

I would be interested for the thoughts of user:Rsjaffe on this point (the user who effected the G7 speedy deletion).

The record [11] now states that the article was deleted upon request of the author, rather than saying what it clearly ought to have said if the AfD had gone its course - which would have been "deleted by community consensus as per AfD #2" or similar.

The record now also says If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND, which it clearly would not say if the AfD had run its course.

I believe that there was potentially a serious abuse of process here and potentially an error by the user who effected the G7 deletion.

If there is no issue with what has happened here then promotionally minded SPAs will be able to continually request speedy deletion to suppress awareness of the fact that an AfD was even commenced.

Also, can I suggest that the article be salted to prevent re-creation? It has already effectively been deleted twice by community consensus (after being re-created a month or so after it was previously deleted at AfD). I see no reason to waste further community time by allowing it to be created again a third time Axad12 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I'm fully supportive of the generally excellent work of Rsjaffe and I voted for him in the recent adminship election (I think I only make 3 positive votes in that exercise, as I only vote for users whose work I've seen first hand - not for those who write a well-worded application).

However, I do think there is a valid issue highlighted above which, at the very least, requires explanation. Axad12 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit as recent as today of this https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:KnowledgeIsPower9281/Eric_Gilbertson_(climber)_-_Mainspace_Draft suggests risk of re re-creation. I feel the AfD had a decent chance of consensus to salt had it not been intercepted by CSD. Graywalls (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Axad12 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I simply want to preserve a copy in my userspace after all the hard work I put into the article. I will not submit another draft to AfC as I know it won't be accepted unless he has more media coverage. I did G7 speedy deletion as the consensus was already to delete the article. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you "preserve" it offline. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the AfD was seriously bludgeoned and seeing it was reaching WP:SNOW, I just don't understand why you had to seek speedy deletion outside of the AFD system. @Rsjaffe:, can we just get some assurance it is not susceptible to being resuscitated through undeletion request like a soft deletion? Graywalls (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

While I probably muddied the waters by accepting the speedy delete, the reason I closed the AfD as delete rather than as moot was to have it on record that there was a successful AfD. To clean this up, particularly since there is a re-creation, I will salt the title. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In the salt note I explained the simultaneous AfD and CSD. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Rsjaffe, many thanks for your input here. Axad12 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the photo uploaded by the user Keithgilbertson is a photo cropped from the twinstothetops PR promotional photo from their Instagram. Caption says it is from K2 in July 2022. They uploaded the photo as "own work". So whoever Keithgilbertson is, they could not have taken that photo unless they were at K2 with Eric. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

I just want to clarify that copyright belongs to the photographer who originally took the picture regardless of how it's re-wrapped. Since you previously shared that Countryhighpoints.com is Eric's website, what's on there is fair to mention here. In https://www.countryhighpoints.com/k2/, it says Eric Gilbertson and Andreas Frydensberg went to K2 together. The photo used in the Eric Gilbertson article is the same same exact picture from that page and Eric's Instagram. Keithgilbertson falsely claimed in Commons upload that it was their own work. The photo had to have been taken by Frydensberg as per Gilbertson's own page, it was two of them that went.

Eric's website, or the user Keithgilbertson do not have the authority to do a copyright release on Frydensberg's work. That has to be done by Frydensberg themselves. There is also no such thing as "for Wikipedia purpose only" release. Even if Eric Gilbertson article was allowable on notability ground, that photograph can not be used without Frydensberg irrevocably releasing the rights to that image under Creative Commons license, which includes the right to reproduce by anyone for any purpose without any compensation to them.

This applies to not just that image, but anything used in any article. I notified you, because you incorporated this image in the re-crated version of the previously deleted article. As for the image, I had it removed for false copyright license over at Commons. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)