Selenocentric
A belated welcome!
edit
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Selenocentric! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Hipal (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
A lengthy welcome
editHi Selenocentric. I've added the welcome message above that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi thanks. I saw you undid my work, but to say that I have COI is incorrect. All of the sources were entirely objective. Having been a journalist myself I have visted ibt newsrooms and many others and I have uploaded my photo and took one off their site. To be clear I have no relationship with this company whatsoever and am not paid for this entry or any other entris i do. I have put in relevant information as to the origins, as I know this is contested and found a number of objected sources on the matter. I have also answered the question as to who reads this newspaper, not dissimilar to what i've seen for other sources, and what I have done for other entries. these are neutral facts on origins. If you have some issue or nuance you want to add please simply add it to what i have done or lets talk about it. Do not simply delete it. Selenocentric (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's still use of misleading edit summaries to delete sourced information, while replacing it with highly promotional content verified by poor sources. --Hipal (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not promotional. The things I have put in are all well sourced and also are in line with what I've seen with other media descriptions, Financial Times for instance, or others. Also I saw that some of the things there, while sourced, were old and answered with newer reporting. Those points still relevant were left in the new section. Selenocentric (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's still use of misleading edit summaries to delete sourced information, while replacing it with highly promotional content verified by poor sources. --Hipal (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)