User talk:Itmanageruos
Itmanageruos, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Itmanageruos! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Itmanageruos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was University of Sargodha, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 220 of Borg 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
[edit]Edit summaries
[edit]
Hi there.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.--220 of Borg 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Username
[edit]Hello Itmanageruos Your username suggests you might have a conflict of interest.
It looks like it stands for "IT Manager UOS" (University of Sargodha). If so please read wp:Conflict of interest (WP:COI). Note that I and WP have no way of knowing if you are who you 'say' you are. I can have a username that could resemble any university officer I wanted to. So even if you say, "yes I am the IT manager at the UOS", there is no way to prove it. Apart from an e-mail from an official e-mail address perhaps!
Some of the edits you made to UOS will need to be modified or removed as they don't meet Wikipedia (WP) guidelines. For example, information about living people must be reliably sourced (WP:RS) but you have added a lot of biographical info about "Mohammad Akram Chaudhary" with no sources, here. Secondly, you have added it to the lead section where it doesn't belong. Remember that you have no more right to edit this page than anyone else. It does not belong to the University of Sargodha. See Ownership of articles (wp:OWN). Your revert has also re-added totally useless linking of the universities name in Urdu, clicking on that will merely lead back to the same page! So totally unnecessary and useless! The flag was removed according to the WP 'Manual of Style' (WP:MoS), see MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. We know UOS is in Pakistan and flags are generally not supposed to be used in info-boxes.
Right now I assume good faith (WP:AGF) on your part, but there has been a lot of wp:disruption regarding Pakistani university pages recently, and you need to forgive me if I am sounding a bit 'officious'. Furthermore, the wp:revert you did of my edit was exactly the type of edit the now banned editor who caused this disruption would perform. Please keep editing, but please do so according to WP guidelines and use edit summaries to explain your edit. 
Regards, 220 of Borg 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Revert
[edit]I have actually reverted all your edits, it would have been difficult to pick the 'keep-able' bits from those that needed to go. 
Note that all text is still 'archived' in the page history so it is not 'deleted' permanently. You can see the edit 'diff', copy it, edit and then re-paste it in. However, if the page needs to be updated, and you wish to readd information about the staff such as chancellors, then you need to provide sources for that information, from secondary sources if possible, not just the UOS website for example.
If you do update the page, please avoid 'flowery' text such as: " Prof. Dr. Mohammad Akram Chaudhary,is the prominent intellectual" this is known as wp:peacockery. WP:MoS says "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, [eg. prominent] use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." It may make Chaudhary feel good, but doesn't really add to the Encyclopaedia, especially when it is unsourced. It is therefore best left out. Regards, 220 of Borg 01:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)'
December 2014
[edit]Edit warring caution
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at University of Sargodha. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 220 of Borg 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
[edit]
Your recent editing history at University of Sargodha 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
If you revert again you will be in breach of WP:3RR and may be blocked. Please read my previous advice! 220 of Borg 04:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.