Talk:Skip Prichard

AFC moved from draft space without being resubmitted
and you guys declined this article in AFC as I did. It has been moved to main space without being resubmitted. There has been some COI editing going on as the article creator contacted one of the subject's employees for advice in getting the article published (see my talk page). Seeing the recent edits on this subject on my talk page I would rather leave this to others to check out and act if necessary. Domdeparis (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do urge other editors, including those canvassed above, to see the discussion on Domdeparis' talk page, which resulted in the above post. In the context of that discussion, I also suggest that Domdeparis needs to understand the difference between the first bullet point on, which defines "instruction", and those that define the different term "instructions". A teacher does not "give instructions"; they "instruct". Domdeparis has falsely accused another editor of "giving instructions", not "teaching". And we have, thankfully, no prohibition whatsoever on "teaching". The claim of "COI editing" is an egregious falsehood, repeated after a warning against doing so, and one for which zero evidence has been offered. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally an article that has been submitted for review should not be moved into mainspace by an editor that does not have reviewer rights. This is an odd thing to have been done done by an uninvolved editor. This article was declined 4 times for various reasons including sourcing and promotional content. After I declined it I was contacted by one of the subject's employees who has been asked by the article creator for help in getting it accepted. As I explained I felt that there was a clear COI and that this editor should not be involved in an article about her boss. I could have simply moved the article back to draft space and asked the editor to resubmit it but seeing your threatening messages on my talk page after you opened up a discussion that did not involve you 3 weeks after it had been concluded. (I wonder if you had been canvassed yourself?) I thought it better to leave it up to the other reviewers to have a look at the article as it stands now and see if their original concerns have been addressed. This is not canvassing because this article should not have been moved to main space without having been accepted by a reviewer. AFC and new pages reviewing is complicated enough and thankless enough without this kind of drama seeking from experienced editors. Domdeparis (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed there was "COI editing". You have provided no evidence to support that accusation, or your other accusations. You now accuse me of "threatening messages", when all I did was to remind you of our policy on personal attacks, and advise you to desist from repeating them. I repeat that advice here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And what personal attack have I made? Which policy have I infringed? Just as a reminder on WP:PERSONAL ATTACK one can read quite clearly ”Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic" and to top this the editor came to chat on my talk page. So please don't hesitate to remind me again of policy. Domdeparis (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not merely "questioned" anyone on "their possible conflict of interest", so that's a straw man. I was quite clear in regard to the matter over which I was advising you to take care, in my original post on your talk page - a discussion which you have since attempted to shut down by telling me not to post there again. Still no evidence of "COI editing", I note. Will you be striking that accusation, or letting it stand? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm..no. As you haven't quoted which policy I have infringed and which diff I did it in and we are in an apparently personal interpretation of policy on your part I'm going to walk away now. As I stated already if you believe that it is necessary please don't hesitate to go to the admin noticeboard but just remember I said to this particular editor that I was convinced that she was acting in good faith. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * i moved it, because it seems notable to me per GNG. if you disagree, take it to WP:AfD . i took down the COI banner, since i saw no evidence of a COI. saying a librarian has a conflict with the head of OCLC is like saying you have a conflict with Jimbo Wales. if you disagree, take it to WP:COIN.-- Brock-brac (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have sent to it WP:AFD. I think the guy is completely non notable, and clearly fails WP:BIO. There was probably the reason the article failed review 4 times. scope_creep (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Self Promotion
A useless, self-written entry meant only to elevate what appears to be a sketchy CEO involved in motivational fluff presentations, maybe running a company. This should be deleted. Keep it on LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:DE35:1377:7F60:E8F (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No evidence for these allegations, as noted before. Please read this failed request for deletion first. Vysotsky (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) (added unsigned first, 19:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)