SheLovesYou

AfC notification: Draft:She Loves You (Beatles song) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:She Loves You (Beatles song). Thanks! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: She Loves You (Beatles song) (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lee Vilenski was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:She Loves You (Beatles song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:She Loves You (Beatles song), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SheLovesYou! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on Logan Paul

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Logan Paul. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the concept of edit warring. In fact I'm the one who warned an editor about edit warring. Additionally, I complied with your suggestion. I removed all trivial information about pets while restoring information about the origin of the subject's choice of brand names. Make sure you warn the one attempting to remove information without a valid explanation about edit warring too. -- SheLovesYou (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources.

Hi there,

You erroneously undid an edit I made to the Logan Paul article. I had removed unsourced content, and you re-added it (still without a secondary source). You also stated I was engaging in an edit war, where in fact the removal of unsourced content is uncontroversial, and unrelated to edit warring. Also, in order to re-add such content, a secondary source must be provided.

Have a read of Wikipedia's policy on sources to help avoid doing that in future:

WP:PRIMARY

InternetMeme (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I complied with your edits, actually. I don't think pets are relevant either ergo I'm not going to attempt to re-add the information; however, I'm keeping around the mention of the Sun Conure in reference to the naming origin of the subject's clothing brand. It doesn't have to be added to the personal life if you don't want. Also, the information WAS sourced, after the word "Conure" a first hand sourced substituted for the whole sentence. -- SheLovesYou (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't plan on solely mentioning that the subject "owns a parrot". However, I'm going to eventually re-add information about the brand's inspiration derived from a pet owned. There's a whole section about a lawsuit over the title of Paul's clothing brand, therefore in that section, perhaps I should specify what a "Maverick" is. And I'm well aware with the policies on Wikipedia. Besides, at first, you weren't even in favor of removing the info, as you just wanted to reword a detail. I don't know what your sudden change of heart is, but at the end of the day, if I add information about a brand's inspiration to the lawsuit section, I don't wanna here anything about an "edit war". -- SheLovesYou (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, I see: I didn't really explain it properly. What's required is a secondary source. Even though the naming makes it counter-intuitive, a Secondary Source is worth much more than a Primary Source. Basically, when adding any content to Wikipedia, it should be accompanied by Secondary Sources (Primary Sources are only really good for backing up Secondary Sources—they aren't worth much on their own).

Also, I'm not sure your removal of the part about Logan Paul donating a bunch of money to charity was a good idea: That fact had a fairly good secondary source backing it up. However, it probably didn't need to be in the lead section. Perhaps you could add it back in to an appropriate section in the body of the article?

InternetMeme (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh! The sentence regarding his donation? Don't worry about it, it's actually already mentioned within the article. I think it's relevant enough to stay in the article too but I didn't think it needed to be placed in the lead. Yes, in the "suicide controversy" section the information is still there.

Also, I'm not disagreeing, but aren't primary sources just as important as second hand? Aren't primary sources un-interpretive, straight-forward and factual? "First hand"? I know secondary sources back them up, but are you implying that there should be TWO citations in a sentence to make it more verifiable?

Yeah, at first I thought you were only an amateur editor but you really seem to know what you're talking about. -- SheLovesYou (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

So are you implying that you won't allow the mention of the subject's parrot unless it's properly sourced? Once more sources have been added, you'll leave it be? Or are you just against the information in general? -- SheLovesYou (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view, two things need to be proven with a secondary source:

1. That the fact that he owns a parrot is relevant

1. That it's necessary to make note of the specific breed of parrot

Actually, thinking further: Does it even matter that it's a parrot? The only relevant aspect I can see is the name (because he claims that it was the reason for his company's name). Why not just say "He claims his company was named after a pet"? I guess that depends on the content of the secondary source you find.

InternetMeme (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

SheLovesYou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20869 was submitted on Mar 15, 2018 05:58:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

SheLovesYou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21595 was submitted on May 21, 2018 23:18:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:She Loves You (Beatles song)

Hello, SheLovesYou. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "She Loves You".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 11:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)