Hi Pawg14! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. NeatGrey (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pawg14, I noticed that you edited out a lot of valuable content from various EA-related articles, and that you also nominated many of these pages for deletion. You are welcome to try to improve the quality of these articles, but many of your edits don't appear to serve that purpose. A more constructive approach would be to raise your concerns in the 'talk' page and try to reach a consensus with the other editors. Thanks! Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done significant cleanup on some Wikipedia articles that were in pretty bad shape. Yes, this involved removing a lot of filler, particularly citations to blog posts. I think many of the editors who work on these articles are too close to the issues, so they find trivial details more significant than they are. (For example, do we really need to know the names, occupations, and locations of ordinary people practicing "earning to give"? I condensed those details into general summaries. Do we really need to know the history of discussion on a particular mailing list?) I think anyone would agree that the current version of the earning to give page is far better than the previous one, though even now it requires some cleanup. I agree that some of my nominations for deletion should have been merge requests, cleanup requests, or TNT. But at that the same time it's important to acknowledge that the EA articles are in terrible shape: overly detailed/trivial, disorganized, biased, and promotional.
• Again, I appreciate your work on the wild animal suffering page. It looks much better. After removing the low-quality content from articles, it would be good to go back and add some high-quality content, but this is much more time-consuming.

I noticed you're removing lots of material from the bio of Julia Galef. I undid your removal of her voice introduction in the infobox, perhaps you are unaware that there is a Wiki-wide project called the voice intro project to add recordings of people's voices to Wikipedia. This was added as part of that project. As for your other edits, you and BlackBeast (talk · contribs) seem to be conflicting in edits on the page, I suggest you wait for others to engage on the talk page of her article first before continuing. --Krelnik (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of the voice intro project, thanks. I'll listen to what other editors say about the page, but I think I have a strong case here. The bio was disproportionately long for Galef's notability. Pawg14 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get a response, and I'm not sure what to tell you. If it were a technical question, like what procedure to use to put information in a Wikipedia article, I would suggest WP:VPT. But this question was also about what it was acceptable to do, and for that I'm not sure where to refer you to. You could always go back to the Teahouse and ask again, and maybe this time someone will answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]