User talk:ExploreWiki: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:36, 21 June 2017

Welcome!

Hello, HeatherMPinchbeck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) thank you. Yes, I am learning how to edit and fill in missing and updated information within the articles. I am researching and selecting pages and trying to update them. Thank you very much for a wonderful platform.[reply]

You are learning quick - just put the WP:SIGN at the end of the item in talk - there are lots of help points if you ever get stuck. My advice is reverse engineer everything - go in edit mode and see what the markup language looks like - and how articles work - JarrahTree 14:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am learning the language, in fact preparing articles to contribute. I'll start contributing and hope so you guys will be helping me. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of IRazoo

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 IRazoo, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The

Adventure

Hi ExploreWiki!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Well its new to me, anyway, I did a research on the topic and created because I am a user of such platforms and I have seen the page of similar company Swagbucks that's why I thought if they are in Wikipedia I can create a page for iRazoo as both functions same. I keep tarvelling and research different things, so I thought to contribute those findings in Wikipedia. Anyways, please have a look at competitor pages and guide me what should I do. iRazoo is on the top 3rd of the list of such platforms. I don't have any idea but perhaps you can guide me more. Thank you HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, HeatherMPinchbeck. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you said here, and read those things. So far, I have not any COI or anything like clients. Based on my long career and researches and travel to different countries where I worked, I decided to not to waste the knowledge I have. Therefore, I started contributing here and I found it excited. I am reading the news every day and where I feel something could be added to Wikipedia I do, but before doing that I always perform a research on similar, articles, people, companies etc. I also use your random article options to read articles and fix the issues in them and that is what Wikipedia says that help us to improve the articles. So I'm doing that, suppose if I ever met someone in person and he/she or that company deserves a Wikipedia page, I'll express and disclose that, I have no issues in doing so. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discourages, but does not forbid, paid editing. However, the Terms of Use require you to disclose your client, employer and affiliation when making paid edits. If you choose to engage in paid editing in the future, you will need to make this disclosure on the talk pages of the articles, in the edit summary, and/or on your user page. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, thank you for informing me again, If Wikipedia discourages paid editions I will not do that, and I was unaware of that, that Wikipedia could be used as a paid thing. As said earlier, so far I have nothing like COI. I am still learning Wikipedia. And thanks to you guys who help. Please do let me know about the tags you have placed. Am I able to remove them after answering in the articles talk page? Or you would do it only? What I understood is I can, after clarifying the issues in the talk page HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we'll need someone independent of the subjects to check and remove the tags. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but as per 'When to remove' and 'Removal' section of the 'maintenance template' I guess after clarifying the issue it can be removed even by the creator of the page. If i am wrong please clear me thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only where the creator doesn't have a conflict of interest. In cases where the creator does, we need it to be independently evaluated. - Bilby (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok great, so as I told you that I don't have any COI and I'll write the same on the talk page and after that, I am good to remove that. Right? Thank you very much. I'll write my statement there and after that, I'll remove. Fine? Or should I make the statement on the talk page and wait for someone else to do it? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no wish to make anything of this, it would be best if you allowed the tags to remain until they are independently evaluated. - Bilby (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for your help. I just wanted to make things clear :) I'll leave them that way or ask some editors who helped and welcomed me here to review the page if you allows. But I guess better to leave that way. Thank you :) HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI Bilby, hope you are doing well. I want to ask some help. I just saw that article again. What happened there? And please let me know how to get independent verification and what is this? I am feeling sorry for that page as I only updated the info as per enhancing the article and fixed grammar by sections and that lead you think that way, I could have done those edits at once but I thought it's easy to go by sections. But unfortunately, it went bad. Do I have to ask someone to independently verify that I didn't do major contribution? or someday someone will come from nowhere and do this all by himself? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Ivan Olita if editing section wise is a COI and fixing grammar and typos is COI then I need explanation. And Wikipedia policy says that if someone places a tag he/she must explain it in the talk page while you didn't. I fix pages with grammar issues, so if I fix them section wise and there is a list of edits lineups in a history, it means I have a COI?? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:MarkTedeschi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MarkTedeschi.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve A.H. Riise

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. HeatherMPinchbeck, thanks for creating A.H. Riise!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I can't really see for what this person is notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Domdeparis (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestion, but I think he is remarkable for being a pioneer and creator of a specific rum. And have a great history and awards won when industries were establishing, he was even honored by the US. And I also added a new reference. Please suggest further, I also have images to their history and products, but not sure how to use them in here. They are more than 100 years old I guess. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your addition to Francesco Clemente has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't add any image, all were already existing in the previous article. Could you please indicate the duplicated material? I tried to rewrite in my own words as much as possible. I did a lot of research and I am continuously trying to fix pages. I really spent a lot of time on this one as I found it interesting. Please tell me which material is copyrighted? I added all external links like I always do. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I found those 2 links, should I remove them and republish it??? I was really not aware of the previous history of those 2 links, please guide me Justlettersandnumbers HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't really know what you mean. Surely you were aware of those pages while you were copy-pasting content from them? Personally, I don't advise re-posting your text until (a) it has been thoroughly checked for any more copying, (b) you have answered the question below and (c) there is talk-page consensus for your proposed changes. The talk-page of the article is the place to discuss that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that I didn't saw those pages, I am understanding that you are saying those pages have problems. So, should I remove those sections and/or edit the text and republish the text. Because if that have problem I wouldn't include it at all.HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now checking everything again for the duplicate text and will let you know when I have thoroughly checked. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Hi, I am done checking the text and I fixed and trimmed the issues of the duplicated text. Please suggest what to do next? Should I publish changes? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, HeatherMPinchbeck. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Francesco Clemente, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HeatherMPinchbeck, I'm just going to ask in plain language, without frills: were you paid to create that content? Because it's really testing the limits of my good faith to believe that little more than a month after the last of a succession of COI editors was asked to leave that article alone, and most of the inappropriate content was removed, a new editor should suddenly decide that it needed such a major rewrite. May I remind you that you are obliged to declare any paid relationship to the page or the topic thereof? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, I am not paid to do anything, I made myself clear to the previous admin. I am just here to contribute. I don't want to violate any policy. I just jump to articles randomly and try to fix them. I didn't saw the talk page of Clemente's article otherwise I wouldn't have touched it. I spent a lot of time in order to fix it and when I started to look, I found a lot of things so I added them. And obviously I didn't rewrite the actual description of his paintings, I mean that is obvious that they are standard. I'll now revamp everything and let you know. Just tell me should I edit it directly or first ask you? If I want to show you how can I show that to you?? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be with Clemente, it is clear that you have been engaging in paid editing on at least some of the articles you have edited. This is ok - while many in the community do have a problem with this, it is allowed so long as you disclose your relationship with your client. But it is important that you make that disclosure, given that you agree to this when you edit through the Terms of Use. It isn't an easy path, but it is the only way to stay within the policies while being paid. Alternatively, we'll need to block this account, which isn't a good outcome. - Bilby (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't argue more about things I made clear already. I thought it's a portal where I can contribute voluntarily and I am just using Random article tab and fixing things I found. I spent a huge amount of time fixing Clemente's article because when I started to look, the internet is overloaded with his work and I thought it will serve as a good source in Wikipedia. If you guys don't want me to fix things, cool I'll stop using Wikipedia. I already told you that if I have connections I'll express that anyway, I am not spending my time here that you threat and doubt me all the time. I was very positive and enjoying Wikipedia and trying to fix articles if you can't see any positive in that maybe I understood Wikipedia wrong, it means placing a banner is a fun and people here don't want them fixed. And you don't know what is the case with Clemente so I don't think so you should be saying like that and make a Biased statement. As on the previous article you did that, I only fixed grammar section wise and you think it's a close connection. If fixing grammar serves as a close connection then almost every article on Wikipedia should be bannered with the same. Your all decisions are based on assumptions, do you want me to take an oath? HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help. All you need to do is disclose your connection - misrepresenting yourself and your connections to the clients just makes things things difficult. If you are willing to disclose when you are being paid we don't have a problem - it is easy to do, and while it will place your edits under greater scrutiny, it means that everything is above board and in the open.

I'm not saying that everything you do is paid, but enough is that disclosure will just solve any issues. I don't know the situation with Clemente, and I'm not saying you need to disclose paid edits you made in the past - I'm just asking that in future you disclose when you are being paid in order to comply with the terms of use. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mr.Bilby, thank you for letting me know that I could get paid using Wikipedia, and I hereby confirm that I'll disclose in the future. I won't mind if Wikipedia or anyone is willing to pay for what I am doing. I hope I took an oath to satisfy your needs. Thank again.

And Mr, Justlettersandnumbers please confirm me on publishing those changes again as I did what you have asked and also polished the text and verified its uniqueness.HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take that as an agreement to disclose your relationship when engaging in paid editing in the future. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! ExploreWiki, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give it a try! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent)

Hello HeatherMPinchbeck,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mduvekot (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent)

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 Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was updating and it was recreated haha, that is funny. Anyway, I don't know what to do more, your decisions. The page was in the process before but again it was recreated, new experience. Thanks. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 HI Bilby, hope you are doing well. I want to ask some help. I just saw that article again. What happened there? And please let me know how to get independent verification and what is this? I am feeling sorry for that page as I only updated the info as per enhancing the article and fixed grammar by sections and that lead you think that way, I could have done those edits at once but I thought it's easy to go by sections. But unfortunately, it went bad. Do I have to ask someone to independently verify that I didn't do major contribution? or someday someone will come from nowhere and do this all by himself? [[User:HeatherMPinchbeck|HeatherMPinchbeck]] ([[User talk:HeatherMPinchbeck#top|talk]]) 09:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 :Which article are you referring to? - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
+I am referring to [[Ivan Olita]] if editing section wise is a COI and fixing grammar and typos is COI then I need explanation. And Wikipedia policy says that if someone places a tag he/she must explain it in the talk page while you didn't. I fix pages with grammar issues, so if I fix them section wise and there is a list of edits lineups in a history, it means I have a COI?? [[User:HeatherMPinchbeck|HeatherMPinchbeck]] ([[User talk:HeatherMPinchbeck#top|talk]]) 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 ==Image tagging for File:MarkTedeschi.jpg==
 Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:MarkTedeschi.jpg]]'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it.  We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.