User talk:Msavannah44

Welcome!

Hello, Msavannah44, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited 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 another 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.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
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
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

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, visit the Teahouse, 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! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Employer Disclosure

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Augusta Read Thomas for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Msavannah44 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate Edits Previously Rejected

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How can I re-submit the edits of mine that were previously rejected? I am happy to comply with the disclosure policy, but want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. Thanks! Msavannah44 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the article talk page to propose edits as formal edit requests, see WP:ER for instructions. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Just a brief courtesy note to say that I have reverted a number of your edits to various articles because you have a declared conflict of interest, and thus according to WP:COI you should not be making edits to articles directly but should instead request the changes at the relevant article talk pages.

I have also declined a couple of your COI edit requests because the sourcing provided wasn't independent of the subject (for which see the relevant policy here WP:RS).

Since you have a declared conflict of interest in relation to Augusta Read Thomas it is probably only fair that I inform you that I have also removed today a very large amount of unsourced material from the subject's article, leaving only the material which is sourced. The relevant policy, clarifying that all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable via independent reliable sources, can be found here WP:V.

I appreciate that the news above will not be what you had been hoping to see, but hopefully the links to the relevant policies will clarify why I have taken the various actions above.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand this. The edits I made were not a matter of opinion but objective fact. All I am doing is listing publicly published compositions in an attempt to better complete the information in the lists/articles. Many of the entries on those articles weren’t referenced at all so I don’t understand why this particular composer is being subjected to more scrutiny. Msavannah44 (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the criteria for material to be included in Wikipedia are that the information must be verifiable using reliable sources which are independent of the subject.

This has the advantage that material complying with those criteria is likely to be significant and notable, due to having been reported on by sources other than the subject themselves. Without such criteria the encyclopaedia would be full of all kinds of non-encyclopaedic information based solely on the article subjects having stated that something was the case. Readers understandably expect to be able to rely on an encyclopaedia and for information to have been sourced from quality independent locations, not simply comments sourced directly from article subjects.

One of the impacts of having these criteria is that editors are required to do a certain amount of legwork to track down reliable independent sources before making edits (or before requesting edits, in the case of editors with a conflict of interest). When an editor is being paid to make edits on behalf of an article subject it does not seem to be an unreasonable imposition that they are required to do the relevant legwork just like unpaid editors are.

Furthermore, given that paid editors are presumably in touch with the article subjects it ought to be relatively easy for the subject to inform the paid editor of where reliably sourced independent articles etc are located to enable information to be verified. If even the subject cannot point to such articles it is reasonable to assume that they do not exist and that the information is thus not notable.

I do not disagree with you that there are areas of some articles in which there are no references, but that is an argument for other material to be removed, rather than an argument for your information to be installed in various articles.

Hopefully the above notes are of assistance. I would advise you to discuss with the article subject and track down reliable independent sources which verify the information that you wish to add (and also which verify the material recently deleted from the subject's own article). Axad12 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief courtesy note to say that when adding additional sources to a COI edit request please do so by replying to the previous response (e.g.: "Here are some independent sources, [etc]") rather than by deleting the previous response and adding them to your original request. This is so that the progression of the discussion is visible to other editors. Your co-operation here would be appreciated, thank you. Axad12 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]