User talk:Zafeirious

Archives

• User talk:Zaferirious/Archive1

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Zafeirious. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the thoughtful feedback and helpful resources!

I acknowledge that writing about oneself presents an inherent conflict of interest, as defined in Wikipedia’s content policies. While this qualifies as a competing interest, I understand from the COI guideline that “the existence of such conflicts is an objective fact... and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error.” I also appreciate that “a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.”

My intent in drafting the article was to contribute verifiable, neutrally presented information, relying only on third-party sources such as institutional exhibitions, official catalogues, academic publications, and press coverage. I tried to avoid any promotional tone, I didn't link any personal websites (except from the official website on the Infobox), and made efforts to write in line with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and notability.

As someone new to Wikipedia, I chose to begin with a subject I am deeply familiar with, not for the purpose of promotion, but because it provided a manageable framework for learning how to properly structure, source, and present material according to Wikipedia’s editorial practices. I now fully recognize that this approach may still constitute a conflict of interest, regardless of intent, and I am committed to refraining from direct editing going forward. I will instead limit my participation to proposing changes via the article’s talk page, in accordance with COI guidance.

Due to the fact that I approached this as a learning experience, I would kindly ask whether a general review of the article might be possible. Aside from the conflict of interest, I would appreciate any feedback regarding the structure and accuracy of how references and citations were used to support statements in the article. Understanding whether the sourcing was appropriately applied would be extremely helpful as I continue learning how to contribute responsibly to Wikipedia and write better articles.

Thank you once again for your time, consideration, and for providing resources to further guide contributors.

Best regards, Zafeirious (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As you are writing an autobiography, the general review of the article is the articles for creation process. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

----

Zafeirious (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Steve Zafeiriou, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 23:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Zafeiriou (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tarlby 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Steve Zafeiriou and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Zafeirious! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tarlby (t) (c) 02:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)