User talk:Klokus/Archive 1

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Klokus! Thank you for your contributions. I am Davey2010 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010! Thank you very much for the welcome :) Klokus (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Using Edit Summaries & Preview

Hiya Klokus,
Welcome to the 'pedia :),
I've noticed you've made quite alot of edits to Madison McKinley‎ without an edit summary
Please infuture use edit summaries and the preview button as A) It stops edit conflicts and B) Everyone can check your edits in one huge edit as opposed to 20 edits :)
Happy Editing,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Davey2010, Thanks for the advice! I was just cleaning up the references and forgot to write anything in the summaries box but next time I will :) Klokus (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yorev.com

Hello, under the A7 speedy deletion criteria, I have deleted Yorev.com. I gather that you may have been the actual author but abandoned the original account due to the similarity of the username and the subject of the article? As for the subject... what makes it important? What sets it apart from other review sites? How is it notable? These are the types of questions you should bear in mind when writing about a company, person, etc. If you'd like to recreate the article I recommend instead submitting it for review so that other editors can critique it before it gets published. If notability and importance is established, they can help refine it to ensure it won't get deleted again. You can use the article wizard to expedite this process. Hope this has been of some help. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal,

No I am not the original author. I was asked to clean up the page by the author and to remove anything that sounded promotional as that's what the page was first tagged with. I've spoken to them and asked that they re-create their page later down the track once the company is more established and notable. Thank you :) Klokus (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Mouawad, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Klokus. 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 Mouawad, you may have a conflict of interest.

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.

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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Klokus. 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 Andy Fumolo, you may have a conflict of interest.

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.

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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disclosing paid editing

Although you have acknowledged paid editing [1], you appear to be in violation of the Terms of Service [2]. Please note the following, re disclosing paid editing. "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Klokus, we have new terms of service and they impose more explicit requirements than we used to have. I have found where you declared one (double) instance of being hired to edit, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiweb10011/Archive. But in response to a formal poke from Logical Cowboy, I'm hereby reminding you that you need to flag future paid edits proactively and more completely: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" - on your user page, on the article talk page, or in (presumably the first) edit summary when you edit the article. Thanks for understanding and for conforming to the rules. We appreciate your openness. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In light of your ongoing work as a paid editor, it would be helpful if you identified any paid edit from June 14, 2014, when the new rules took effect. Some of your edits have involved articles that seem promotional, are under consideration for deletion, etc. In the spirit of openness to the community, and conformity to the rules, you should disclose which of these edits were paid. To be clear, I think that Yngvadottir's suggestion that the Terms of Use only apply to your "future" paid edits is incorrect. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and such - and copying

Hi Klokus: Thanks for adding your effort at Devin Gibson. However, this edit was mostly not an improvement garmmar-wise. It is incorrect to capitalize things like subjects of study and professions - in fact it makes text look vaguely promotional, because that style tends to characterize sales materials. And Wikipedia avoids overlinking, which includes both obvious things (like New York) and repeated things (like United States every time). We also try to avoid linking within a quotation. Here's the applicable section of the Manual of Style.

More seriously ... the section you added with this edit, while a useful addition to the article - thank you! - was pretty much copied and pasted from the source article. Never do that. It's not even a good idea to do it as a first step prior to paraphrasing, because it's far too easy to change it very little - in which case it is still copyvio. Copyvio is a serious matter (see here for extensive explanations), so best practice is to summarize it. Then if you think more detail is needed (it often isn't; I don't think we need the value of the yacht in this case, or even the name of the hotel or the nature of the vandalism, so I have reduced it to a simple statement that it was vandalized in Marina del Rey and he was reportedly going to sue), add back the details in your own words. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Andy Fumolo

added a link pointing to German

Mouawad

added a link pointing to Carlsbad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Who-is-famous.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Who-is-famous.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who-is-famous.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)