User talk:Dd865dd

Welcome!

Hello, Dd865dd, 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lissa Lauria 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:

* [http://youtube.com/lissalauriavevo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Lissa Lauria because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not designed to be a resume hosting service. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

Hello. I'm not sure why you felt the need to talk to an IP address, rather then to me, the person who has actually been reverting your edits. Regardless, here I am, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss why your edits are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Although I used automated messages to save time, I am, in fact, a real person, in case you thought otherwise.

First of all, you have declared a conflict of interest (COI). It was pretty obvious before you declared it, frankly, but it's nice that it's above-board and transparent. Please read about having a conflict of interest here: WP:COI and here: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Many editors just skim these, or think that these guidelines don't apply, or are obvious, or something, but understanding them will make this go a lot smoother.

Second: Wikipedia accounts are one person = one account. Do not share accounts, and don't create multiple accounts (with a few technical exceptions). If this account is being shared by multiple people, it can and will be banned. So when you say "...we are not sure why" I need you to clearly state that you understand what I'm saying. Is that clear? Please address this issue.

Third: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Wikipedia isn't a resume hosting service, either. The fact that your edits managed to slip through the cracks until now is not a valid justification for reverting to a promotional state.

Fourth: Wikipedia relies on verifiability. Articles should be built on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reliable means that sources which anybody can contribute to (such as IMDb or Wikipedia itself) cannot be used as sources. This is especially important for WP:BLPs: Biographies of living people. Additionally, Wikipedia distinguished between primary and secondary sources. Sources that are affiliated with the subject can only be used in limited cases. Adding information just because it is flattering is not one of those cases.

As for the picture, I switched it because an encyclopedia article should use an image that is clearly recognizable, not an artsy one that hides the subjects face. Again, this isn't about promotion, this is about clarity.

As a COI editor you should not be editing the article directly except to revert clear-cut vandalism. Instead, discuss your proposed changed on the article's talk page: Talk:Lissa Lauria.

You should respond here, on this talk page, to show that you understand what I'm saying about COI and single-user accounts. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wow. This feels good. Now that I understand and have figured out how to respond...(honestly I'm an intelligent woman lol)...but sometimes this stuff goes right over my head. I get it now. Totally understand. I just hope you can understand that being a novice, it almost seems like you've been targeted. Thanks for the information. Dd865dd (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Lissa Lauria. Thank you. —Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not obnoxious, nor am I a man. I'm a woman. The reason I didn't respond is that I just now figured out how to. I love Wikipedia and go on frequently and yes, donate whenever I can as does my husband. My only concern with all of this...and unfortunately I'm not as savvy as all of you are with this type of editing, etc...is truth. I did not mean to be promotional in nature. I guess when you are involved in the entertainment business, it's the way you tend to be so it sounds promotional. Also, I had no idea that anyone affiliated with her in any way could not edit a page. Honestly, I would have thought the opposite. Who knows better what is actually happening with an artist than those who have worked with her. Again, it's just a lack of knowledge on my part. Aside from all of this, please, let me be transparent for a second. The reason a lot of people that edit articles and read and contribute get frustrated...and I know several of them and have read their rants...is because sometimes we don't know as much as the rest of you on how it all works. For example, I was called obnoxious by one other person. I don't even know him. That is very rude and uncalled for and it makes me want to never read Wikipedia or contribute again. Can you see that? Again, I wasn't ignoring anyone. I was just frustrated and didn't know how to write to you. I'm a communicator and if someone took the time to explain things to me in English, I would respond. As a writer, I would love to learn more and contribute but it feels like if you're not one of the "in" people, then you are on the sidelines and get targeted as I feel like I am now. Okay. I'm off my soapbox. I hope you heard my heart and not just my words. I didn't intend to make an issue here. Dd865dd (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for communicating, rather than wp:edit warring. I'm sorry, I did not mean to call you obnoxious, I was frustrated that you would go to another edit board to complain about my behavior, rather than respond to me directly. I have been trying to discuss this with you by posting on your talk page. I wrote a fairly lengthy post on this page explaining some of the problems I had with your edits, and you had, until now, failed to respond to me at all. Please note the date on the above signature. Instead, you go elsewhere and gave no indication that you had even seen what I wrote. Intentional or not, I do think that behavior was a bit obnoxious.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for the record, I never actually said you were a man, that was another editor. Notice the signatures? It's also worth noting that you have assumed I am a man without any evidence. No, I am not "Elkman" that is a post by another user on my talk page. Again, notice the WP:SIGNATUREs? How about we let that particular point drop, okay?

It's not that you cannot edit in any way, it's just that, as you've said, you are not really impartial about this. Wikipedia works by verifiability. We rely on outside, impartial sources, not personal familiarity. If you are an expert on this person, great, but understand that we have no way to confirm that you are who you say you are, nor do we wish to pursue that path. If you are an expert, that means you know of other reliable sources that can be added to the article. Another important concept in Wikipedia is due weight. Just because a detail is true, that doesn't mean that it should be included. Much of the information you have added about Lissa Lauria has not been supported by reliable secondary sources, which makes it seem very promotional. The way we determine due weight it by secondary sources. Blog are usually considered self published sources and are only rarely useful. IMDb, for example, should not be used as a source, (WP:ELPEREN), although it unfortunately tends to slip through the cracks much of the time.

Even mentioning that you donate seems counterproductive unless you in some way expect special treatment, and I hope you don't. Many editors who are apposed to promotional editing also donate, and Wikipedia is open to anyone, not just those who donate. Again, Wikipedia is not interested in verifying which editors have and have not donated, so let's just drop that point, okay? Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was counterproductive...and not expecting special treatment...it just came out with the amount of frustration I was feeling. I did not know how to communicate and the only place I found was one that said "contact" or something similar. I know for those of you that are used to this type of system, it's simple. But for a lot of us, it's like speaking a foreign language. Now that I understand and you explained yourself, I really get it. Although, one point of contention, is that most of what is on other actors/singers Wikipedia pages use imdb as a source and on Lissa Lauria's it was okay for a couple of years then suddenly it all changed. That's what I think was also frustrating. For many in the entertainment industry, imdb is THE source and many agents, managers, producers and directors use it as such because they are very strict when it deals with credits...so for many of us it's like our entertainment Bible. Okay. Let's start over. And yes, I assumed you were a man also. Shame on me. Honestly, I don't care what gender you are. I'm just very appreciative that I now have a sense of understanding and have a way to communicate. Thanks. Dd865dd (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. I've been doing this long enough that I lose track of how unintuitive it can be, but I agree that it's a very complicated thing.

Like I said, IMDb often gets used as a source, but past discussions (many, many of them) have come to the consensus that it shouldn't be used that way. Because it is so widely known as a general website, linking to it in the "External links" section is okay, it just shouldn't be used to support specific info. Besides, if it's important to the topic, why not just go to IMDb directly? Why copy info from there to Wikipedia?

There are so many articles on Wikipedia (6,922,662, just in the English one) that problems often go unnoticed for a long time. For this and other reasons, Wikipedia doesn't really work on "precedent". The state of one article is not, by itself, a valid reason to preserve the state of another article. Likewise, the state of an article in the past is not, necessarily, a valid argument against changing it.

Part of Wikipedia's nature is that articles can and will be developed over time. Sometimes by being expanded, and other times by being tightened-up with the removal of unsourced info, WP:Wikipuffery, WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel words, etc. I first noticed the article because it had a gallery of example images across the top (Seen here). The collaborative part of Wikipedia means taking the "good" (being able to rely on others to fix vandalism/errors such as the gallery) with the "bad" (accepting that the article is not always going to stay the way we want it). I made a number of drastic edits to the article to align it more with what my perception of Wikipedia's policies, and also how I personally like to use Wikipedia. I don't like articles that read like resumes, and I know I'm not alone in that. Your goals are, from what I understand, about promoting your client through Wikipedia. That's not what Wikipedia is for, so caution is called for, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the way 'you' personally like to read, but that seems rather subjective. Some people do like articles that have a bit more flavor, as I do when I roam around Wiki, and know many people who like more than a cut and dry list of facts that sound like a robot wrote it. Lastly, my goal was not to promote. If you Google her name, you will find that many, many references to promotion that has nothing to do with our promoting her or even Lissa herself. Being a public figure with many fans, we were hoping that Wikipedia would be a page where "facts" could be shared about her since we know the truth and not what gossip columns spout. That was all. Dd865dd (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I edited the article to match my understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I make no apologies for removing puffery in the process. Because of your conflict of interest, you are not the appropriate person to add 'flavor' to an article. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to share facts (I don't know why you're using scare quotes) that aren't supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "scare quotes?" I was just stressing a word. Writing, emailing and texting, because of the inability to hear tone or see body language, can seem to mean one thing but can be entirely opposite. But on that note...I think the problem with this site is it's very subjective - one editor can believe it should be written one way and another one a different way. And if something on a page gets flagged for whatever reason, the entire page seems to become a target. I understand that you are following the rules, but I read other Wikipedia pages every single day that are edited by reps and PR companies that sound like an advertisement and nothing is ever changed. I'm sure you can understand how that can be frustrating. For me, this is done. Whatever you feel is right, do it. There will be no longer a conflict of interest. I won't be editing any pages or spending much time on Wikipedia any longer. Thanks for your time Grayfell. Dd865dd (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I read WP:SCAREQUOTES as an expression of doubt or sarcasm. I certainly don't wish to dissuade you from editing, but I hope you will consider editing other subjects, ones which you are less directly involved with. The reason Wikipedia is so widely used is in large part because it strives for WP:NPOV, neutrality. This is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. The line between information and covert advertising can be blurry sometimes, but without at least an effort at neutrality Wikipedia would be just another platform for press releases. The Internet already has plenty of those. Yes, there are a lot of promotional articles on Wikipedia, but, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not really an answer to that. It would be pretty defeatist to say that because there are other articles with problems we should ignore the ones we happen to notice. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DSC 0053.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:DSC 0053.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Lissa Lauria, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Dd865dd. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Lissa Lauria, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Patient Zero^talk 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lissa Lauria.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lissa Lauria.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]