MissSG
MissSG, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi MissSG! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC) |
Welcome!
|
March 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bethel Music, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Walter! I put in a reliable citation. [unsigned entry]
- @MissSG: when you make entries here or elsewhere, it is standard practice to sign the entries, to facilitate trust and communication—even at your own page, because with time, those visiting/following your article will also initiate dialogs here, and otherwise post messages. Also, over time, there will be a persistent stream of business that arises, especially because there are automated tools that monitor editing mistakes, and these will be called to your attention.
- You do this signing, most easily, hit the "tilda" key, ~ (shift-1), four times.
- Also, I took the liberty of adding one sentence to your "User page", see tab above. This page is essentially entirely yours to edit, and these pages become elaborate here, but can be as short or long, honest or cryptic, as you wish. Look at Walter's, and mine, and those of any other editors you come across, to begin to get the idea. (The reason for adding the one sentence, is so that your name does not appear in red, which is a flag to other editor's that you could be a problem editor. Best to avoid being misunderstood, early.) Cheers, see also next message. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Editing at the Steffany Gretzinger article
editI was directed to the Steffany Gretzinger article today, because of a need for proofreading and copyediting (stray grammar and punctuation errors, etc.). This is not my main vocation here, but the article was short, and so I did a quick first pass to copyedit it. (My main work is in the verifiability of information here—working to raise the standards regarding plagiarism, self-publication, etc.—and then in content generation in the area of my teaching.)
In doing that fast work at the SG article, I became aware of a sourcing issue, and I have left a message at the Talk page of that article, for you and other regular editors. Please have a look at that Talk page message, and respond there. Note, I am the poorest of correspondents here, especially on such work as this (which is not in my areas of expertise or interest). If there is something to which you need to reply, please be patient in waiting for a response, it may take some time. See also next Talk entry here. Cheeers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
As a new editor, I want to make one further point. You may have not had time or interest to read the Wikipedia:Five pillars or other such Wikipedia philosophising, and if so, I can sympathise. But there are a few basics that it are important to grasp early, to get avoid conflict and wasted time here. (General note: All blue text that appears here are links to further information, potentially important or maybe just fun, that can be clicked.)
There are many Wikipedia policy articles that are referred to repeatedly here, and key among them are ones that deal with the need for information presented to be verifiable (WP:VERIFY)—Walter's point above—and for it to be neutral in point-of-view (WP:NPOV), and without any conflict of interest (WP:COI). Individuals and organisations are not allowed to use the encyclopedia to self-promote, and this leads to strong policies and efforts to ensure that the sources required to establish verifiability of information (in WP:VERIFY) are independent, third-party sources (WP:THIRDPARTY). It also leads to the general rules that create high standards for articles that are biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), and prohibits editing that is nothing more than an individual's further self-publication of their biographical information (WP:SELFPUBLISH)—that is, prohibiting writing of autobiographies at Wikipedia (WP:AUTOBIO).
This summarises a large number of policies; as they say, all generalizations are false (the foregoing is not fully a fully precise summary of all those policies and guidelines). But it is meant as a jumpstart for your understanding this context, and as an introduction to the following two specific pieces of guidance for you.
As you will see, when you look at the edits at Steffany Gretzinger, there is a need for improved sourcing—moving away from the Bethel website as the principle source of the article, to independent sources (third-party presentations of information on that individual). This is true of your edits there, and of everyone else's as well. And, this need is true, even if you can find 50 articles that break all the same rules (and they often due, because the mistakes are being made faster than editors can keep up with fishing them!). I will do a little today to improve and set a pattern at that article, of what is needed. While the article improves it will bear a tag (flag), saying it needs to improve. These are temporary things, meant to come off as problems are solved.
But the bigger issue relates to what all editors might surmise, based on your User name here—that you might either be the title subject, Steffany Gretzinger, or someone very close to that person. In either case, your editing must be very careful, and I would advise the following. If you are, or are very close to a person or other subject here, you should, first, be absolutely forthcoming about your close relationship to the subject (stating on your user page "I am…" or "I work for…" or "I am related to…", etc.), so that others do not misconstrue the relationship, and impart ill motives. Second, you should find a way that your expertise can be incorporated here, without your doing the actual editing. That is, you, as an editor, need to avoid WP:COI, and, if applicable, to avoid your editing violating WP:AUTOBIO.
One way to do this is the work through this Talk page: Whenever there is a news story on the close subject, log in and say "Hi, this is… there is a new article/story, etc., here…" and paste in the link. If this is done, and you let people know in your supportive community—especially the techies with whom you relate—that the article needs them to look in from time to time, to edit, then these sources of information can be read by others, and excerpted for the article. As the article receives more views, and becomes more active, its following editors will take on this responsibility, and ensure things continue in proper directions.
I will try to look in, but cannot guarantee attention, and that is why I have taken the time today, out of concern for your long-term success as an editor, and for the success of the SG article. Cheers, XP — Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Nor People magazine
editPlease stop treating Wikipedia like a personality magazine. We don't need to know about birth announcements made by subjects via social media and other trivial content. See WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)