User talk:Parisapril

Welcome!

Hello, Parisapril, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! I am One of Many (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ping Fu Controversy.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now deleted both the Articles for Creation version of this article and the version on your userpage. Wikipedia takes information on living people extremely seriously, and your article contained un- or poorly-sourced claims about multiple living people. If you wish to write an article on this topic, I suggest very strongly that you read our policies on what constitutes original research, which sources are reliable, and how we deal with controversial information about living people before trying again. Continuing violations of these policies could end in you losing your editing privileges. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Fu

Please do not add links to articles that are targeted to your userspace. That is incredibly inappropriate. Thank you. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Lukeno94

thank you for letting me know, i will wait for the article itself passed review and can be published as an independent page. Parisapril (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Fluffernutter

Hi Fulffernutter, thank you for letting me know, can you tell me which part of my post contains personal info of wikipedia contributor? most of the link and source are on amazon.com and various news outlets. I will remove the portion that deemed inpropriate if you can point them out to me. The essence of the article is trying to document an ongoing debate on line. Traditional US media has not been able to provide objective report, and i originally thought Wikipedia is the one of the few last fair and balanced area where common people's voice can be heard, not just the establishment, the rich and the powerful.

thank you for your patience. Parisapril (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of wikipedia. It's not here for anyone's "voice to be heard"; it's here to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't the place to put The Truth about things you think are being covered up, nor is it the place to construct timelines of things you feel are important. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox to share your opinions. Nor, especially, is the the place to put "evidence" you've dug up (using original research) about who people are or how what they think is wrong. I'm not going to detail for you what content you added that violated one or more people's privacy, because that would re-violate the privacy. I will just say that even if you think you're sure you know who a Wikipedia editor is, it is against our rules for you to publish or link to that information on Wikipedia. It is also against out rules to write articles (or userpages) that assert negative things about living people without substantial, very strong sourcing. We take our responsibility to protect people being written about very seriously. If your goal is to research and document your own case about how one or more people have done something wrong, I would suggest you do it on a personal blog instead, because that will never be acceptable Wikipedia content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching this page because I was getting ready to find someone to delete that post you made, Parisapril, when I saw that Fluffernutter had just deleted it. I saw all the same reasons that Fluffernutter explained. Do read the harassment policy link they provided, along with the policy on Biographies of Living Persons. That latter policy applies to ALL living people, not only the subjects of articles. First Light (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Flutternutter and First Light. I'm puzzled by this "Wikipedia editor" you kept on mentioning. I had no idea there is actually a Wikipedia editor was involved in my humble attempt at documenting a timeline surrounding a book controversy. Now since you pointed it out something i wasn't aware of, then i have a better understanding on why this is happening. I was citing sources from The Guardian Forbes The Sunday Telegraph Sir Harold Evens Amazon.com The Daily Beast and wikipedia itself. If those are not substantial/strong enough for you, i understand. Thank you for letting me know who the Wikipedia editor is. I'm glad I got that last piece of puzzle completed with your help. Wish you both a great long weekend! Parisapril (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you dragged a named person through the mud, based on using amazon.com as a reference, was enough for me. Who in all of that mess the wikipedia editor might have been, I have no idea, but it's now more than obvious that you aren't here to help build an encyclopedia. First Light (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that you dragged a named person through the mud" that sounds like accusation to me. do you have any proof other than what you heard from the other side? I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I recorded what said person published on line as events developed. encyclopedia means it encompassed all things that's happening and happened. There are plenty of events on wikipedia that's current. maybe you don't like amazon as a reference. i didn't know that and i could change it. But please don't accuse me of something you have no proof of. Parisapril (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using amazon.com comments to 'prove' that a person did or said such-and-such is not allowed on Wikipedia, and by most people with some common sense about the internet. Have you read the policy on Living Persons linked above? And no, an encyclopedia doesn't "encompass all things that's happening and happened." Nor does Wikipedia. Please read WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in that regard. First Light (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]