User talk:Aidan Casey
March 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm GB fan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of ventriloquists have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ~ GB fan 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to List of ventriloquists. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ~ GB fan 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
All I am trying to do is be included in this list I have been a ventriloquist for over 18 years and perform for 1000's of libraries. I included a link to the web site that I am featured on as a reference. What should I do? Include individual news articles. I am not a code person and am finding this VERY difficult to comprehend. Thanks, Meghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Casey (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- To begin with you shouldn't be writing about yourself. If you are notable someone will write an article about you. To be considered notable for a Wikipedia article there needs to be multiple sources that discuss you in detail. These need to be reliable and independent of you. If you think you meet this standard you can start an article using the articles for creation process. You should disclose you are Meghan Casey if you decide to do this. Then after the article is accepted then we can add you to that list. ~ GB fan 19:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of ventriloquists shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ GB fan 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Some artilces. Should I contact the authors to publish then?
https://durangoherald.com/articles/93449
http://americanprofile.com/articles/ventriloquists-bring-together-dummies/
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ventriloquism. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
How is this in anyway spamming? Please explain. All that was added was an external link to the Puppeteers of America a place that features articles about ventrilouqism. Guess \ wikipedia is not a credible source at all for those seeking to learn all they can about a topic.