User talk:Inkian Jason#Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve

Current requests:

• Draft:Henry Timms
• Talk:Lorraine_Twohill#Career_section:_2003_to_2009
• Talk:Lorraine_Twohill#Career_section:_2010_to_present
• Talk:Lorraine_Twohill#Career_recognition_2
• Talk:Lorraine_Twohill#Infobox_and_introduction
• Talk:Prabhakar_Raghavan#Proposed_removal
• Talk:Jay_Sures#Demonstration
• Talk:Tekedra_Mawakana#Removal_request
• Talk:Tekedra_Mawakana#Image
• Talk:Matthew_Pittinsky#Role_at_ASU
• Talk:Matthew_Pittinsky#Update_request
• Talk:Matthew_Pittinsky#Scottsdale_Unified_School_District
• Talk:Matthew_Pittinsky#Brentwood
• Talk:Trendyol#Turkish_Competition_Authority
• Talk:Trendyol#Sponsorships
• Talk:Trendyol#Infobox_and_introduction

I've created this list for personal tracking and in case any Talk page watchers are interested in assisting.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk)

(I'm reintroducing the material below, recently archived, as I feel it warrants a response.)

Hi,

I've noticed recently that when you seem to be encountering difficulty with your COI edit requests you regularly turn up at a related wikiproject to try to rope in bystanders to do your bidding. For example on edit requests for Breyers and Lorraine Twohill.

This is an obvious COI blackhat activity and I would ask that you to refrain from making similar posts going forwards.

The COI edit request process is a method for COI users to request oversight over issues where they have a conflict of interest. Attempting to influence which sort of user will deal with the request is a blatant abuse of process (especially when, as at present, the COI edit request queue is very short and is being worked on by plenty of non-conflicted volunteers).

That is all the more the case when a request has previously been declined by a non-conflicted user. Axad12 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::I just noticed this comment here, and I just want to say that I appreciate User:Inkian Jason being transparent and cooperative, and strongly disagree with the characterization of posting to relevant Wikiprojects as "obvious COI blackhat activity". Per WP:APPNOTE:

:::An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

:::* The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

::Just because a user has a COI does not mean that they are not allowed to use appropriate notification methods to solicit additional editor input, particularly if there is only one (or no) editors responding to their requests. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Excellent point and appropriate for you to post here, {{u|Photos of Japan}}. Inkian Jason followed the WP:COIE procedures correctly at Talk:Breyers, yet was berated above by {{u|Axad12}} and indirectly at Talk:Breyers through hostility against me for completing the edit request.

:::Although no one wanted the long processes that followed, Inkian Jason's simple justified request about propylene glycol in early November led to this RfC avalanche in favor of removing the propylene glycol/antifreeze comment and the garbage sources used by Graywalls. This exhaustive admin discussion speaks clearly for itself that Inkian Jason's request was right all along.

:::An apology to Inkian Jason by Axad for making such an abusive comment (the "blackhat" bullshit) against a sincere, fair edit request is in order. Zefr (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi,

::::I've already acknowledged my error in this regard elsewhere so I am, of course, very happy to extend my apologies to Inkian Jason directly here.

::::All that I said (mainly back in November, but also subsequently) was based on my understanding at the time of the relevant policy. I accept that I was wrong in that regard.

::::The subsequent history at the Breyers talk page through November and December has clearly been most regrettable, with the situation having become increasingly polarised. That swiftly resulted in a lack of assuming good faith in all directions - and I fully accept that that very negative situation flowed from my own initial failure to assume good faith. I was entirely to blame.

::::I hope we all agree now that the clearly emerging RfC consensus is correct. I defended the pre-RfC consensus (as I saw it) in a way that was also based on my understanding of policy, but which has also been subsequently pointed out to me to have been based on a misunderstanding. I have apologised for that in some detail elsewhere. I entirely support the new consensus. My interest has only ever been in serving the consensus and not in aggressively pushing any kind of fringe POV.

::::It was remiss of me to have fallen in line with the opinions of other more experienced users whose opinions I generally respected rather than judging the specific content issue on its merits. The consequences of pursuing that flawed approach have been very keenly highlighted to me by subsequent events.

::::To return to the issue directly under consideration, a few days ago I implemented a couple of COI edit requests that Inkian Jason had made. This was intended as a simple olive branch to indicate that I bore no personal animus and that I treated such requests on their merits rather than in a partial and unfair way.

::::I have since undertaken to step away from COI work and I wish all parties the very best in their future endeavours.

::::Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I am happy to move forward. I do plan to re-submit some of my recent requests for projects I have worked on for additional insight, which I hope is okay given this discussion. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, agreed 100%. Axad12 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello Inkian Jason. 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:Inkian Jason. The template {{tl|Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{tlc|paid|2=user=Inkian Jason|3=employer=InsertName|4=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.
I note your comment about employment and COI on your user page. This is the formal question to ask you to state formally that you are a paid editor. It gives you the form to choose. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:If you look at this user's talkpage, or userpage, then you will see that their COI is already disclosed. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Gheus}} Thanks for taking a look at the draft and for the notification. Can you say more about why you think the subject has only received "routine" coverage? Not only is he the subject of multiple in-depth profiles in major reputable news publications ([https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/30/arts/music/henry-timms-lincoln-center.html The New York Times 1], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/arts/music/lincoln-center-henry-timms.html The New York Times 2], [https://www.philanthropy.com/article/giving-tuesday-founder-henry-timms-injects-new-power-into-an-old-nonprofit/ The Chronicle of Philanthropy], [https://www.ft.com/content/91b7d3f9-9014-4b0c-bef0-94448791f984 Financial Times], etc.), but he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals as the co-author of the (notable) book New Power and a co-founder of the philanthropic movement GivingTuesday. He has also been [https://thenonprofittimes.com/people/henry-timms-receives-honor-from-king-charles-iii/ named] an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO. He has also led multiple notable organizations and he is linked in multiple existing Wikipedia entries. If there are ways the draft could be improved to make notability more clear, I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Jason, thank you for sharing these references. I'll take another look and get back to you later this week. Gheus (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gheus Sounds good! Also, thanks again for accepting Michael Sheehan (speech coach) and I've left a comment for you at Draft talk:Bitdeer. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Rusalkii Thank you! I'm also seeking to have the related Draft:Henry Timms taken live, if you're interest in reviewing. I've just added a new comment regarding notability. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Inkian Jason Could you please check with your client regarding the contractor they hired to create this article? It is still undisclosed, so please ask your client to disclose it per WP:PAID. Gheus (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gheus Hello again. Our contact at Brunswick is not aware of a relationship between the company and User:ThirdRing4000 and I intend to propose some improvements to the Brunswick Group article on the company's behalf in the near future. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance here. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for reviewing, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)