User talk:Duke English
|
April 2012
[edit]
Hello Duke English. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kathy Psomiades, 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.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- 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.
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. MarkBurberry32 talk 15:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kathy Psomiades, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Please do not remove maintenance templates from articles unless you fix the issues contained within them. Thank you. MarkBurberry32 talk 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Biographies of academics
[edit]Hi, besides the comments on my talk page and on that of the user just above, perhaps it would help you to have a look at WP:MOS, WP:MOSBIO, WP:EL, and WP:ACADEMIC. Hope this helps you navigate WP, feel free to post any questions on my talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- As the editor above has removed my comments from his talk page, I'm re-posting them here:
- I have had a look at Kathy Psomiades and, while I agree that the username of Duke English may one lead to suspect a COI, I found the article sufficiently neutrally-worded to remove the COI tag. There are, however, much more serious problems here: there are no independent reliable sources showing notability either according to WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I have tagged the article accordingly. Without the addition of good secondary sources, the article as it currently stand runs a large risk of being taken to WP:AFD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia & check out the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! Duke English,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|