User talk:I.new.around.here
I.new.around.here, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi I.new.around.here! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC) |
Mar 2019: Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]
Welcome I.new.around.here!
I'm Quisqualis, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Quisqualis (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
--Quisqualis (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
[edit]
Hello, I.new.around.here. 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 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, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- do your best to comply with 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).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi I.new.around.here! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Help me! re page Steven Strauss
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi - I am very new here, and might just be a little confused or have made a mistake. I seem to have gotten into a bit of a convoluted situation. On the page Steven Strauss User:Avaya keeps deleting all of what are (IMO) normal quality secondary source material (Strauss being interviewed, cited, or quoted by NYTimes, CNN, CNBC, Guardian, CBS News, etc). According to reliable sources Strauss has a Ph.D. from Yale, and has been on the faculty of two major universities, but Avaya1 keeps deleting the description of Strauss as an academic.
While deleting secondary sources, Avaya1 had added his own description of what Strauss is known for/has done, but does not cite any secondary sources. For example, On the page Avaya1 has stated that Strauss worked for 5 years for McKinsey, while it is clear that Strauss worked for McKinsey I don't see anything on the page that supports the claim of 5 years - and even if true I am not clear why it is notable? Avaya1 has added a section on Strauss's politics with a quote about Israel, Strauss is not known for his opinions on Israel (I checked the interviews/sources he is known/cited/interviewed for his work on economic development and technology - all of which Avaya1 keeps deleting).
Please see the Talk page for Strauss for a longer list of my concerns. This has been going on for awhile, e.g. -- I think we are now up to about the fifth time that Avaya1 has deleted secondary sources from the page and added back his material Another more experienced editor has also suggested to Avaya1 that he not being adding things to the page unless they are reliably sourced, preferably from secondary sources, and IMO suggested the Israel stuff does not belong on the page
It appears from the Talk page and edit history, that Avaya's explanations for his behavior are:
- Sources such as CBC, CNN, CNBC, etc are (in this context) puffery/peacockery/not-encyclopedic
- that the other people who edited the page have COI issues, and Avaya1 has stated I am a sock puppet.
- I have made extensive comments on the talk page (since I am new at this it was helpful for my thinking to do this in detail), Avaya1 has not engaged or responded to my content questions, except to reiterate his COI issues).
- I am concerned Avaya1 may not have a neutral point of view
I have also raised these issues at the Teahouse, see above on my Talk Page for the archived version of the advice I received. The advice was helpful, but has not changed anything.
Any suggestions for next steps?
I.new.around.here (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I recommend discussing any proposed changes on the talk page of the article, ignoring any personal accusations, clarifying strictly that you have absolutely no connection to Steven Strauss (or, if you have, then clarifying this as soon and clearly as possible), and -- if really necessary after a fact-based discussion -- having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, specifically Wikipedia:Third opinion. If you would like me to invite other users to the discussion, feel free to request me to do so neutrally by leaving me a short message ("could you invite X to the discussion at Y") on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- At a glance, the sources used in the "long" version of the page were to a large degree not independet but rather Strauss' own writigs or interviews with Strauss. No matter where such sources are published, they are not the content an encyclopedia article should be based on - rather, we need what others, independently, have reported on Strauss. Regarding the specific sources you mentioned above:
- CBC: Interviews, not independent.
- CNN: Trivial passing mention that doesn't cover Strauss in any detail.
- CNBC: Interviews, not independent.
- So yes, when an encyclopedia article is turned into "Strauss on Strauss", that gives the impression of puffery. Huon (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- At a glance, the sources used in the "long" version of the page were to a large degree not independet but rather Strauss' own writigs or interviews with Strauss. No matter where such sources are published, they are not the content an encyclopedia article should be based on - rather, we need what others, independently, have reported on Strauss. Regarding the specific sources you mentioned above:
Biographies of living people
[edit]
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Suggesting a username change
[edit]You may freely ignore this advice, but I personally would recommend:
- Using Special:GlobalRenameRequest to request a username that is suitable for permanent use, instead of keeping one that clearly implies a temporary state.
- Not explicitly mentioning that you are new when making a comment on a talk page, because it should not matter and becomes less correct every time it is mentioned.
Thank you very much for your consideration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Christine Lu for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Lu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Lu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)