User talk:Hotfikses247

Welcome!

Hello, Hotfikses247, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --VViking_TalkEdits 16:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VViking, thanks for the intro.

Your edits are disruptive, you've completely reverted my contributions multiple times, contributions which have been sourced from print and reputable websites.

If there are points in the content that feel "disruptive" please address those specific points to build on the work.

Facts that also appear on other pages of Wikipedia are not disruptive, and shouldn't be contended.

Hotfikses247 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viewmont Viking is correct. You are adding entire paragraphs to the Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts article without any citations. Please read WP:RS. The tone of a lot of it is promotional. Please read WP:NPOV. And, fair warning, you need to read WP:3RR. You are the one being disruptive, by repeatedly adding material that other editors have removed. The WP:BURDEN is on you to secure a consensus for the inclusion of that material. The way of doing that is through discussion on the article's talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we can argue this all week, but there are citations for everything I added. I'm also new, if you felt like my edits weren't up to snuff, you could have constructively edited them, like VViking ended up doing, instead of completely reverting all of my updates. (I removed all adjectives since that seemed to be a sticking point).

Hotfikses247 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is a statement, immediately after some text, giving the source for that text. This edit introduced several paragraphs with no such citation. The rest of that edit was a sourced list of names, which doesn't help much with no context (although it's better than an unsourced list) and a paragraph on something that was organised by people who were part of the RSA, which is of peripheral relevance, unless this was a key FRSA activity, which isn't what is stated. Most of the content appears to be about the RSA, not FRSA (the topic of this article). Recently, several editors have added similar material, presenting FRSA in a puffed-up, promotional way. Your edits looked like another attempt at that. I apologise if that's not the case. I'll leave the page for a few days and then look at it again to see if it's improved. As before, material with no citation, or that's irrelevant or looks promotional, is liable to be removed. EddieHugh (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Royal Society of Arts into Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]