User talk:Dandelionz

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dandelionz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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!

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Douglas Snelling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

he freelanced as a sketch artist of movie stars in Hollywood during 1937-38, where he met [[https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Errol_Flynn|[Errol Flynn]] and began to emulate his style of
on Snelling. Explanatory posts are at [http://douglas-snelling.com Jackson's blog on Snelling].)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Fylbecatulous. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Luigi Rosselli, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Fylbecatulous talk 11:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Dandelionz. You have made it clear that you are Davinia Jackson (here and here. Your edits are somewhat self-promotional (this series in particular, where you placed an in-line hyperlink to a website you own under the first words of the article. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some requests for you below.

Hello, Dandelionz. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

Comments and requests[edit]

Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.

One of the challenges is related to COI, which has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous or edit under Usernames here, and edits are immediately published (no intervening publisher or peer review). Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work.

Wikipedia is a widely used reference work; managing COI is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

Disclosure first: you have already disclosed your real world identity and your relationship with Snelling (as his biographer) in various places. (Note: if you want to remove the disclosures of your real world identity that you have made, you can do that by emailing the Oversight team, as described here: Wikipedia:Oversight On the other hand, you may be happy and comfortable having disclosed your RW identity. It is entirely your choice whether to disclose your identity, or not).

To make that disclosure complete, we need two things. The first is to make the disclosure on your User page, (here: User:Dandelionz). Again, you don't have to disclose any personally identifying information, but you should disclose the relationship (like: "I have written a biography of Douglas Snelling and own a website about him" -- and if there are any other topics you have edited in WP where you have real world relationships, please disclose them too. Please note that your Userpage is not a webhost for advertising things you do in the real world - it is a place to tell other Wikipedians about your work here. Disclosing COI is part of that. Please see Wikipedia:User pages for further guidance on userpages)

Second, you should make sure that you disclose your COI on the Talk pages of articles you edit, where the COI is present. An easy way to do this, is to simply include a link to the COI disclosure on your User page in your signature, which you can customize in the preferences for your account. See User:Middle 8 for an example. We can also handle this by using the "Connected contributor" tag in the headers of the talk page. The third alternative is to simply note your COI when you make comments on Talk pages. In any case, would you please add the disclosure to your User page?

Peer review step. What we ask editors with a COI to do, is offer suggestions on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article. Going forward, please do not directly edit articles where you have a COI, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page? You can do that easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Would you please do that going forward?

You can reply here with answers to those two questions. I am happy to talk, if you have any questions or want to discuss anything, you can write them below. I will see them, as I am "watching" this page.

Just want to end this by saying again, that we love expert editors here, and deeply appreciate their time. So thanks!

Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your advice on conflict of interest and other editing protocols. I have started with a COI declaration re the two WP articles I have edited and am now going through the other suggestions re procedures.

I will upload my proposed changes for the Luigi Rosselli site to its talk page but I had assumed that all edits, if contested, could be edited by anyone registered, on the site itself. This seems to have been successful for my previous contributions to the Douglas Snelling site, where people may delete references to my publications if they really feel that readers should not know about these sources.

Dandelionz (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and for informing the community that you are editing for pay. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest concerns re current edits to Luigi Rosselli article[edit]

As requested by WP editors in previous talk posts, I've now seriously studied various relevant WP policies and recognize that I have a) a conflict of interest in accepting a fee to help Luigi Rosselli answer the various WP concerns about his entry and b) as an architecture writer who has regularly written about Rosselli, I have been attempting to publish my 'original research', contrary to the WP policy of 'no original research'. Regret that I have accidentally contravened these policies.

I would like to record that two of my publications on Rosselli are cited in the entry on him at the Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture (Goad, Philip & Julie Willis, 2012, Cambridge University Press, p.606). The author of that item (P. Goad) included personal, original comments on Rosselli's style and productions of buildings (as is usual in reference books about artists and other creative individuals). It seems that these sorts of comments could be quoted in WP, off the Cambridge encyclopedia and other sources, but not if they are coming directly to WP from a topic expert.

Because the conflict of interest objections now make it difficult for me to help improve the Rosselli article, could other WP editors please help straighten out the concerns expressed at the top of the existing entry?

Many thanks for helping me navigate and clarify all these protocols.

Dandelionz (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile![edit]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Freedman (April 5)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft also has tone issues. It appears to be written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. See WP:Markup for how to mark up section headings.

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:George Freedman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Dandelionz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:George Freedman concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:George Freedman, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]