User talk:DMNE2020

hi

recent edits

the edits you're inserting need citations. please source and cite before readding, Saintstephen000 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Alalch E.. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Colm Imbert, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Alalch E. 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kinds of citations are you looking for? All of my edits are easily verifiable from official government webpages, online articles in the mainstream media etc DMNE2020 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you that they are relatively easily verifiable by a dedicated fact checker, but they have to be verifiable in a practical sense to a casual reader. The kind of citations that must be added are Wikipedia:Inline citations. But there is something else that I want to tell you:

Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an online encyclopedia. In one of your recent edit summaries you said: Repaired substantial unauthorized edits done by a stranger. However while it's certainly important for you to implement your desired version of the article, and feel "authorized" to do so, the philosophy of Wikipedia is quite the opposite: Here, things are done through a consensus among strangers, and no one has special authorization over anyone else regarding what the content of a page will be – even if you feel like you have a special relationship with that page, you do not own it. —Alalch E. 00:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of me "owning" a page. The article/bio about me was already quite detailed, complete with a photograph and was up to date to just a few years ago. I simply updated it to the present day. The stranger I am referring is someone who decided that my updates were not verified and deleted them all. However, in so doing they deleted almost everything on the page about me, including stuff that had been there for years without challenge. Surely, of there was a question about the credibility of my updates, the previous version of the article, as of yesterday, could have been restored. The information about me is now minimal, and it will take quite some effort and time to even restore the article to yesterday's version DMNE2020 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is the version which is to your liking. Sadly that version fails our Wikipedia:Core content policies and our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to expand the article, it can be done, but it must be done in accordance with our established practices of developing encyclopedic content. Now that this problematic content has been identified by editors and much of it removed, the only way to really get it back is to find sources that back everything up, and cite them in the article. This being said, there is a standard notification for someone in your situation, which I will post right now. —Alalch E. 01:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DMNE2020. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Colm Imbert, 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 organizations 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 {{request edit}} template);
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, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

As you said, you have been writing about yourself. This is strongly discouraged. —Alalch E. 01:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How then can I restore the previous version of the article about Colm Imbert that was online up to yesterday? For the record I am the Colm Imbert that is the subject of the article, and I was completely unaware that I could not or should not update an article about myself.

By the way, I am quite impressed at Wikimedia's current approach to the content of an article in your online encyclopedia. In the past, some years ago, I saw content in an article about myself that was highly inaccurate and inflammatory, and I wondered how it was possible for someone to edit an article about me and insert false and misleading content without any consequences. Times have certainly changed DMNE2020 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes, it's best to give the text that best reflects the facts as you know them to a person who would find benefit from assisting you by spending an afternoon locating news clippings, alumni newsletters, nexus/web archives, google scholar, etc. an intern, perhaps. some people have found that significant periods of their lives are currently without documentation, and that's a fact daily challenging professional editors. as was noted, your good faith combined with significant bookwork should allow your version of the events, when factual. and sourced. cordially,

Saintstephen000 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we think you're

inserting unsourced biographical information into an article. we appreciate you're trying to make our encyclopedia more accurate, which as well aligns with our mandated goals. so thank you.

however, if you're adding unreferenced and improperly cited material, we all agree it would be best to revert the errors and allow the editing to the persons with the knowledge and time.

thanks, and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is MY page about ME. Who else will have the time and knowledge to edit my information but ME? DMNE2020 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

totally on me, i apologize for the ambiguity regarding specific edits. it's someone named colm from trinidad tobago. the edits weren't sourced, so we removed them. you seem knowledgeable on this topic. we would ask that you make this article into a shiny gem of correctness, an example of correct editing. thanks again, Saintstephen000 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMNE2020, it's important to understand that Wikipedia needs sources to support article prose. With your edit, you introduced a very large amount of prose, but provided just two citations. I did look through what you added, and did not find anything that egregiously violated WP:NEUTRAL. However, we strongly discourage people from writing on articles about themselves. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. We can work to build the article using available references. It would help if you could, here, identify news articles and other sources that would support prose in the article. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]