User talk:Polliewatch

March 2022

Hello, I'm Alpha Piscis Austrini. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wendy Lovell, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why a reference to an official transcript from a parliamentary committee hearing published on the Parliament of Victoria’s website is not a credible source? Polliewatch (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why a reference to an official transcript of a parliamentary committee hearing published on the Parliament of Victoria’s website is not a credible source? Polliewatch (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polliewatch. I can probably help with that one.

Of that particular paragraph you had six sentences making six related, largely promotional claims. The only one that was referenced was the last sentence. This reference didn’t provide any support or source to the previous five and was, on its own, not of any note or significance to speak of. And your other para was completely unreferenced and clearly promotional.

The subject may have had achievements in this space, but if you list them they need to be 1. Referenced by an impartial source, I.e a credible news site or industry journal 2. Significant (so not that some minister said the subject did alright in, what, an estimates hearing?), and 3. Not clearly promotional in language.

Wiki is an encyclopaedia, not a LinkedIn page. Pls try to write it in language accordingly.

Hope this helps. Ponyshine (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wendy Lovell. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]