User talk:Gordonlear

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gordon Michael Lear (April 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gordon Michael Lear and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gordon Michael Lear, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gordon_Michael_Lear Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clarityfiend&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gordon_Michael_Lear reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Gordon Michael Lear
Hello, Gordonlear. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gordon Michael Lear, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gordon Michael Lear


Hello, Gordonlear. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gordon Michael Lear".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Common snook have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Red drum. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback and was wondering how I can add value to Wikipedia as a 40yr expert in fishing. I get that my blog appears to be a for profit site and technically it is, but my revenue for 2023 is $1.45.  My mission behind the site is to educate this new generation full of influencers and tik tok famous folks that will do anything to gain view.  This includes the exploitation of our fisheries.  My goal is to create a blog dedicated to teaching folks how to be advocates and conservationist for our lands and waters.  I want people to understand why abiding by the laws and regulations are a good thing and that ethical fishing is the only way.  Of course all of this can sound like soapboxing and links back to my site are to pages with affiliate links but I honestly am looking for a platform to get the message to as many people as I can.  There has to be a away I can do this out here.  I am more than willing to pay it forward and help wikipedia anyway I can.  Thanks for your time.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Gordonlear (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, the role of author and editor are separate. In mainstream journalism, a journalist writes content and an editor's job is to review and fact-check it before publication. Blogs are, by definition, self-published sources where the writer and editor are the same person... therefore there is no independent editorial review. That's why Wikipedia disqualifies self-published sources (including blogs, social media site and Internet forums). Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, books and magazines.


 * Subject-matter experts are welcome, but they are bound by the same rules as all other Wikipedia editors. If your knowledge and expertise has been quoted by an existing reliable source, then it would be acceptable to use that source. Previously published reliable sources, not individual Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.


 * Your goal here should be to add accepted knowledge that has been already reported by reliable sources, not to raise the profile of your own website. Because your blog also engages in affiliate marketing, there is a legitimate concern over conflict of interest. You have a commercial interest in driving traffic to it, therefore editors here will question any motives that appear to be self-serving. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)