User talk:Clara Branch

Welcome!

Hello, Clara Branch, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Shen Yun, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 23)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Clara Branch/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Clara Branch/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Whispering^(t) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clara Branch! Having an article 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! Whispering^(t) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Epoch Times without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I don't think you yet understand our NPOV policy. You'd be better off discussing such edits on the talk page, especially as this is under discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, what kind of vandalism are you talking about? On Falun Gong talk page, I have presented evidence that supports my edit. Please check.Clara Branch (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the wrong template, it should have been blanking. Your edit summary was also misleading as it said that the article has been stable for years, ignoring the edit warring just over a year ago. A couple of other problem edits: here[1] - you should never change quotations, even if it's just a spelling change. Here[2] you removed some sourced text - not all of that statement was clearly sourced, but its views on sexuality are sourced. And of course you added the citation needed tag without checking and then didn't give other editors a chance to fix it, which is not the way the tags are meant to work. Here[3] you show that you don't understand WP:NPOV and indeed your edit was against the policy. You did that here also. NPOV means that we show criticism as well as praise.

A much worse edit 2 days ago, this is really bad.[4] First, after removing material as unsourced clearly because you didn't like it, you added unsourced material on the medical uses of Euphrasia, including details that aren't in the main article. There's even a big tag at the top of the article saying "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources. Please review the contents of the article and add the appropriate references if you can. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed." You completely ignored that. And you are misusing the minor edits tag - any content change or addition is not a minor edit.

So I may have mislabeled your edit, but you've made a number of edits that are against policy and where you should have been warned, and as for adding a cite tag to material where half was sourced, then removing it entirely 3 days later, and then adding unsourced medical information that could actually be dangerous to readers - would it be fair to say that you were being a bit hypocritical? I posted this around 1040 on the 22nd, forgot to sign. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, Thanks for checking my past edits. Yes, I had edit errors as a new and inexperienced user. For the medical uses of Euphrasia, I have a book at hand but was not clear how to reference the book. I have learned this and just added the book reference. You are welcome to review it. Any more helpful tips are appreciated.

As for the warning you targeted at my edit on the Falun Gong article, thanks for recognizing the warning was misplaced. Clara Branch (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]