User talk:Lilanelson14

Lilanelson14, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lilanelson14! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lilanelson14. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with internet troll Walter Görlitz

Hello. I’ve been a frequent contributor to wiki’s request for fund contributions. I appreciate your intentions at WIKI to be a one stop shop of information for anyone desiring to learn about a celebrity or event.

I’m also a celebrity myself, and I need your help. Ever since my own WIKI page went up, I’ve been victimized by trolls and random ‘editors’ who have felt perfectly comfortable going up on my page and deleting my information. Mind you, this is all bona fide, sourced, verified, and well known information that meets all of WIKI’s rules ... including basic things like my own date of birth.

I know that the intention for WIKI is to have a living and ever-changing source of information. But why is it that any troll or shut-in can alter anyone’s Wiki page without any checks and balances?

This situation is now effecting my business. The latest troll removed the fact that I’ve sold millions of records, had number one hits, or appeared on television.

Is there ANY way you can help me safeguard my own page? Like perhaps verifying the facts in a page for myself that I submit and locking it down so that no one (me included) can alter it?

Any help you could give me would be MUCH appreciated.

Kind Regards from an avid WIKI supporter,

Gunnar Nelson NELSON The Rick Nelson Company Gandlnelson 07:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP is not supposed to be a one stop shop for anything, it is supposed to summarize what has been written about a topic in reliable sources, as WP defines it at WP:RS.

As Gunnar Nelson (musician) currently stands, it's not well sourced at all.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is very important. WP:AUTOPROB may be of help to you, but remember, this is WP:s article about you, not your article on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if this is two people using the same account, please see WP:NOSHARING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by writing that I'm sorry for any problems my edits may have caused. Wikipedia is built on five pillars. The second one states, "all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." That's what Gråbergs Gråa Sång is alluding to. Since the article on Gunnar doesn't have a lot of sources, so another editor, who was alerted to the article (and his brother's) as a result of the issues that were created when you objected to my earlier edits.

You initially objected to the edit I made on October 29. With every edit, we can add an edit summary to help other editors understand why we made changes. I wrote that the changes were per WP:OVERLINK, WP:OPENPARA: don't use peacock tearms., General formatting by script.

The overlink was that United States was linked in the first few lines. And for the record, while he performs internationally, he's still an American and that should be what's listed in the opening sentence. Linking to the country isn't helpful since most readers will be somewhat familiar with the nation, and there isn't an important reason to link since the nation would not cease to exists or change dramatically if Gunnar hadn't existed.
The group of editors who oversee biographies have determined what is best for readers to understand the subject by reading the first few sentences of the article. This is called the opening paragraph. Editors should list the subject's name, a (sourced) birth date, and what makes the subject notable. We should avoid listing honours, awards and recognition. That's why "international multi-platinum" was removed. The fact that this isn't referenced is also problematic.
Finally, I should have linked what "peacocking" means. WP:PEACOCKing or "puffery" is when loaded terms or superlatives are used to describe the subject. The link here uses some examples.
There were other things that were change by one of the scripts—computer code that looks for common problems and attempts to correct them—I use. The pounds were replaced with numero marks (No.) which is explained at MOS:NUMERO.
I made a change to the URL in the infobox. Using the template gives it a standard appearance while making it easier to understand by computers that incorporate Wikipedia content on their sites. That's sites like Google or as small as fan sites that grab content about subject-specific articles.

There really isn't anything in the changes I made that were problematic and certainly do not merit being called a troll. Again, sorry if you didn't like changes. I didn't make them, or the latter ones, to upset you or make the article on Gunnar less accurate. I made them to help improve the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And calling an editor a hater doesn't really fly. Back to the biographies of living people policy, there's a section that states "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced". In this case, Gunnar's sublings (Matthew and Tracy for those not familiar with the subject) and his parents are not only well known, but there are a lot of sources that discuss all them. In the case of brother Sam, all that we have is reliable sources that are not connected to the subject that say that he is a sibling, so it's safe to mention him. There's not a lot written about your marriage, and there was no source, so it had to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing user pages

Do not make any more edits to the user pages of other editors. Continuing to do so will result in being blocked. You will not be warned again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]