User talk:George.kane.matthias

Welcome!

Hi George.kane.matthias! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JohnDavies9612 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Hello George.kane.matthias, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi George.kane.matthias. Thank you for your work on Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it has no sources and fails to establish notability. I have marked it for deletion, but you can of course fix these issues before it is deleted. Have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, George.kane.matthias. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Marek Tesar, 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 Request Wizard), 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. You have also edited almost exclusively about Tesar, his partner Nina Hood, his journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, his organisation Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, and Hood's organisation The Education Hub. If you have a conflict of interest here, you must declare it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Education Hub for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Education Hub 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/The Education Hub 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) 16:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The article now includes independent, reliable sources showing WP:SIGCOV. RNZ and the New Zealand Herald have given national coverage to its literacy and inclusion reports. In addition, peer-reviewed scholarship cites The Education Hub in areas such as curriculum (McPhail 2023, 2025), literacy (Boyask 2023; Fjørtoft 2024), inclusion (Griffin 2025), and pandemic pedagogy (Jandrić 2020). This combination of mainstream media and academic recognition demonstrates clear notability under WP:GNG and WP:NORG. George.kane.matthias (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. WP:NORG requires coverage of the organization itself, not reports it might issue. And please answer my question above about potential conflicts of interest. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Independent media and academic sources provide significant coverage of the organisation itself, not just its reports, satisfying WP:NORG and WP:GNG. I have further updated the article. I have no conflict of interest, other than being an educationalist mapping connections across the New Zealand education sector and working systematically through key figures, organisations, and educational matters. George.kane.matthias (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully convenient that they all have to do with Marek Tesar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Grudnoff moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lexie Grudnoff. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Te One moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sarah Te One. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barrow moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mark Barrow. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lexie Grudnoff (September 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Lexie Grudnoff 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George.kane.matthias! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Barrow (September 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by RangersRus were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Mark Barrow 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.

RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]