I see that Dmitry has been posting bogus notices on your page and nominating your articles for deletion. If you're wondering why someone who has never written an article is harassing people on Wikipedia by accusing them of being paid and placing bogus notices on their pages, all without any proof, you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joetrip HARRISONSST (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the information! At first I thought it was just a nutcase who I crossed by deleting his article. But now I'm even more discouraged. 18:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Pollia (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pollia. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Warith Al Maawali, 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:Pollia. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pollia|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. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please define what I am accused of and what article it is related to. Pollia (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It states it above, Warith Al Maawali. Why did you write an article on an individual who is clearly non-notable and full of self-generated WP:PUFF? scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thanks to concerned editors like you, wikipedia is getting better every day. I assure you I did not pursue any goals, it was just a continuation of my previous articles. And whether or not it's noteworthy is for the consensus of editors to decide. Pollia (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't actually answered the question. The article reads like a straight-up paid-for puff piece UPE article. There is no other way to look at. Now the tag has been posted, admin will look at it. scope_creep^Talk 20:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misunderstood me. As I said above, I have no conflict of interest. The article was written as a continuation of previous published articles. If you don't like the article or think it is not in compliance with wikipedia rules, you can vote to remove it. You can also take a look at my other articles and make claims about them as well if you like. Pollia (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you took up this article at all. I was originally accused by User:Dmitry Bobriakov of a conflict of interest under Detroit Festival of Books. Or now all my articles are under threat? I repeat that I don't have any articles that I would write for money, but thanks to User:Dmitry Bobriakov I found out that it's possible. Pollia (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also. According to wikipedia rules, first provide me with damning evidence before you accuse me of anything! Should I google and find you the exact names of the wikipedia policies that prohibit you from doing so? Pollia (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Your Detroit Festival of Books article looks fine as far as I can see. I took it up because I saw it mentioned at Ani and have !voted to delete it. I spent almost a decade working at the COIN noticeboard and have seen many hundreds of these types of articles that no place on Wikipedia. You've said you don't have a conflict of interest. That is fine. scope_creep^Talk 21:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have as much experience as you do. I apologize if I said something bad or too emotional. It's hard for me to understand why I'm being attacked by the administrators. But I'm sitting here reloading the brouser page now, waiting for someone to respond. Thank you. Have a good day. Pollia (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spent too long there at coin and it jaundized my views about upe. I'm sorry if it was harsh. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont worry. I can comment on my history of creating articles at that time. I was living in Russia and for me, as for many people around the world, anonymity is not the last topic. At the time, I was considering different versions of operating systems that provide anonymity. Including Linux Codachi. So I translated the article from Russian into English and added a little bit to it. Then I wrote an article about its author, then about firejail. then my interest waned because I found other ways of anonymity. In wikipedia, I developed new passions. Over time, I realized how wikipedia works and focused on editing other people's new articles. i write my own articles from time to time. They are not always good, not always noteworthy. Thank you for your help. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Have a good day. Pollia (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we'll meet up to discuss something interesting and neutral in time.=)* Pollia (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep, I hope you are well, after seeing your message where you indicate that you I spent almost a decade working at the COIN noticeboard. I can provide you with a number of materials and captures that demonstrate that this editor was paid to edit and publish the Detroit Festival of Books article (and the articles that have been proposed for deletion only reinforce the arguments I will make). I will be very grateful if I can provide you with all these details, as I want to make a point of clarity on this whole subject. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer work there. I would suggest raising it a WP:COI noticeboard if needs be. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation, I will take care of all this work. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see it too, Sheriff Pollia (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are not deletable under WP:A7. Please read the criteria more carefully before using them. I've moved the article to draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I will re-familiarize myself with all the criteria. Pollia (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I see this again you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. It really got on my nerves. Pollia (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This (8 minutes after your apology directly above) isn't much better. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for gravedancing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detroit Festival of Books 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/Detroit Festival of Books 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.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Pollia. I came across your work because I generally patrol new pages created by blocked users. I found Detroit Festival of Books to read as promotional (and to be non-notable). Seeing the discussion on your talk page, I reviewed your other pages, and I agree with the AfD participants that Warith Al Maawali and Kentucky Blood Center are also promotional and non-notable. The article on Al Maawali is particularly bad; it's basically a resume for the guy and it employs all the techniques used by spammers on Wikipedia (such as relying on press releases or thinly veiled press releases and engaging in synth by incorporating sources that don't reference the subject). I will take you at your word that you have no conflicts of interest, but when you are unblocked, you will need to demonstrate through your edits that you can participate here in a non-promotional way, creating pages and editing to maintain a neutral point of view. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to make you think that way about my articles. You must agree that it is not easy to write only good articles. I hope create better articles and edits in the future, and maintaining a more neutral tone. Also, I have a few days to get more familiar with the guidelines and rules of wikipedia. =) Pollia (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I always recommend asking for advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE, where volunteers are always happy to offer advice and help you evaluate sources and tone. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]