Welcome!
Hello, WendyVanTIlburg, 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 {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
JoannaSerah (
talk)
03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, please do not remove others talk page comments. Thanks. Beach drifter ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello WendyVanTIlburg. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Beach drifter ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The updates I made were to in accordance with journalistic standards. The picture that was used is over 10 years old and not hte property of Wikipedia. The facts about the election results were not facts, but rather a local newspaper account - same results but the state board of elections is objective. The new information to bring the article up to date is from the Washington Post. I see no journalistic reason to continually revert this article back to being outdated. What are your factual reasons for continuing to change the page? You know my name. I don't know yours. I don't know your person POV. I don't know why you don't update the article as it is a living person. Please explain your reasoning to me and what evidence that you have that my additions/corrections are not factually accurate. I will certainly be open to seeing any evidence.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ilario Pantano. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
Please pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines and the comments in the edit summaries and on the talk page for this article. Simply reverting back to your version was not appropriate until some more discussion and consensus was reached. Thank you.
JoannaSerah (
talk)
03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, WendyVanTIlburg, 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 {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
JoannaSerah (
talk)
03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, please do not remove others talk page comments. Thanks. Beach drifter ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello WendyVanTIlburg. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Beach drifter ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The updates I made were to in accordance with journalistic standards. The picture that was used is over 10 years old and not hte property of Wikipedia. The facts about the election results were not facts, but rather a local newspaper account - same results but the state board of elections is objective. The new information to bring the article up to date is from the Washington Post. I see no journalistic reason to continually revert this article back to being outdated. What are your factual reasons for continuing to change the page? You know my name. I don't know yours. I don't know your person POV. I don't know why you don't update the article as it is a living person. Please explain your reasoning to me and what evidence that you have that my additions/corrections are not factually accurate. I will certainly be open to seeing any evidence.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ilario Pantano. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
Please pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines and the comments in the edit summaries and on the talk page for this article. Simply reverting back to your version was not appropriate until some more discussion and consensus was reached. Thank you.
JoannaSerah (
talk)
03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)