User talk:Missylisa153

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Missylisa153, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of 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)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shady Leprechaun (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using categories

The idea of Categories is to group people who are subjects of articles rather than Users. You might want to join one of the Wikiprojects mentioned on the Discussion pages of the articles that you have worked on. I hope you enjoy making contributions to Wikipedia.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

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. Them From Space 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hi, I started a discussion about your edits at the conflict of interest noticeboard. You are welcome to defend yourself there. Them From Space 15:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert Reed (Catholic priest)

I have nominated Robert Reed (Catholic priest), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Reed (Catholic priest). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting links

Hi, the way you formatted external links at Robert Reed (Catholic priest) did not look good. The article was promptly nominated for deletion, partly because it was not evident that there was any coverage from independent sources. Please study WP:CHEAT and WP:CITE for how to do it better! I've started cleaning up that article, but please finish the job. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic, thanks for your help. I am inexperienced at authoring Wiki articles so I welcome any further suggestions you might have to improve the article. I know there is controversy over the fact that I was paid to write it, but I do not necessarily think that this should prevent the articles from remaining online - if the article is sufficiently non-biased and non-promotional I don't really see what difference it makes. Missylisa153 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't encourage you to do it again for money; the article will always be suspect as a result. However, I agree with your last point; I have helped to make some other conflicted articles fairly decent. Using independent sources in a plainly unbiased way is essential. It's all the more credible if you can find and include some independent criticisms of the subject.

Please tidy up the remaining references for a start -- can you do this using the advice above, or following the examples that I changed already? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fayenatic, I will look at this tomorrow. It's late and I'm tired. I'm a bit annoyed that another of my articles, George Bornemissza, has now been blacklisted - that one has been online for nearly a year without even a whisper of a mention of being deleted. :( Missylisa153 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article George Bornemissza has not been "blacklisted" it has been tagged as having a creator who has a conflict of interest and is not about to be deleted either?Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have cleaned up the links on the Father Robert Reed (Catholic priest) page - you were right, it was a bit of a mess, sorry. Missylisa153 (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you haven't got what what I mean. Instead of, for example,

<ref name="wow">[http://www.catholictv.com/catholic-kids.aspx]http://www.catholictv.com/catholic-kids.aspx</ref>

please enter

<ref name="wow">[http://www.catholictv.com/catholic-kids.aspx WOW: The CatholicTV Challenge] at CatholicTV.com</ref>

The part after the space but before the closing square bracket appears as the name of the link, like this:

WOW: The CatholicTV Challenge at CatholicTV.com

Much better than the way you left it,

[1]http://www.catholictv.com/catholic-kids.aspx

OK? - Fayenatic (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fayenatic, I've now done as you suggested :) Missylisa153 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing policy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29 Prohibited activities • An editor advertises article creation or maintenance of articles about a corporation for a fee, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of outcomes is made. • An editor is obliged to make edits in the article namespace on behalf of his or her employer as part of his or her job description or duties. • An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia. • A political consulting firm hires an editor to edit Wikipedia articles to promote a particular point of view.

It would appear that your edits are prohibited by the policy above. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out to me that the above is still only a proposal, but you still have a clear conflict of interest if you are being paid. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the fact that any of my articles are promoting a point of view. Anyway, it's late, I'm tired, I'm going to sleep on this and look at it again tomorrow. Missylisa153 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is partly this: how would you know whether you are promoting a point of view, even if you write up your sources objectively? If you use sources provided (selected) by the subject, these might leave out negative reviews, controversies, etc.

Try not to take this personally. Some of my early articles were deleted or merged too. I learnt from it, got the hang of the policies (see links in the Welcome message above), and carried on contributing. Hope you will too, even if you don't get paid! - Fayenatic (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that everyone now knows that I was paid for the article means that there is a lot of reading between the lines going on. Apart from the Catholic TV website, I wasn't provided with any sources - I've found them all by myself by doing various internet searches. Over the on AfD board, the issue now seems to have moved away from the paid editing policy (which, it has been highlighted, is only a proposed policy anyway), to the idea that Father Reed is not famous enough to warrant a Wiki page. If being the director and game show/talk show/TV show host of a large Catholic TV station doesn't make him notable, I don't know what does! :S Missylisa153 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well done for finding your own sources. I thought I read at the Freelancer page (since deleted) that sources would be provided. At least now you also know that independent sources are worth more than those connected to the subject! Some articles in independent media that were about Robert Reed, as opposed to articles about Catholic TV, would make him notable.

I also note that you copied and pasted one paragraph from http://www.catholictv.com/Father-Robert-Reed.aspx without rewriting it. That's a copyrighted page, so please also see the policy WP:COPYVIO. At least the article wasn't speedily deleted, so you have had time to make changes and present arguments. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now rewritten the copyrighted content. Hope this is better Missylisa153 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Freelancer.com

The article Freelancer.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you paid to write this article, too? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was - but the article currently online bears very little resemblance to the article I originally wrote, and I have not touched Wikipedia for some time now. Please feel free to do whatever you need to do. Missylisa153 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Freelancer logo color on black large.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Freelancer logo color on black large.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]