|
User talk:SetomorpWelcomeWelcome! Hello, Setomorp, 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:
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 October 2011Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Carol Barnes has been reverted. AfDHi, Setomorp. As the banners on the page say, you shouldn't add material to an AfD after it's closed. The article's talk page is the right place for that or, even better, write a section of the article that uses the new sources. I don't think any harm has come this time, but you might want to revert that edit [1] anyway. Dricherby (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Christy Lee RogersDo you know this person in real life or have any connection to them? The bit you referred to was actually removed by another editor, along with a couple other sentences. However, since you brought it up, after reviewing the sources it is simply not a verifiable fact that we can include. I've checked all the sources and they all repeat the same mantra that she "is not known" to use manipulation, so it's obvious most of the sources are simply copies of a couple original articles/blog posts. You may wish to read WP:RS and WP:V. Read them very carefully, please. Thusly, the previous editor was correct to remove that sentence because it is simply not verifiable. If you can find a reliable, verifiable source that can legitimately back up that claim, then by all means it should be included. But after you brought it up, I went and looked through every single source I could find, most of them which don't conform to WP:RS/WP:V, and there is simply no evidence or proof of origin for the claim. Do you understand? If you want to assert that Rogers does not use manipulation in her photography, then find a reliable source that can verifiably prove the claim. Otherwise, it's just hyperbole. Laval (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I have also left additional comments on the talk page for the Rogers article, and recommended you also read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, which also contains additional links of interest regarding WP:BLP and the stringent qualifications necessary in "sticking to the facts & just the facts". As you may or may not know, biographies of living persons are held up to very high standards of sourcing & verifiability, and this is also of course to prevent the misuse of biographical articles for the purpose of self-promotion, advertisement, etc. Laval (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Conflict of interestJust wanted to let you know I made mention of you on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Christy Lee Rogers. Feel free to provide a rebuttal there. Laval (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Dan WagnerHi Setomorp, Please can you advise the reason for the revision of the page Dan Wagner. All additions to the page were clearly sourced and validated.? User:Ol king col Sentomorp works for a PR agency according to this, https://twitter.com/setomorp, part of World Wide PR. Given this, you should be aware of the new terms and conditions of wikipedia regarding paid editing, and also about the rules regarding company/organisation accounts. 151.226.140.40 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
