Lyupant

Welcome!

Hello, Lyupant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Cherry Laine have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  !dave 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia || Some notes on Neutral Phrasing and on Reliable Secondary Sources

Dear Lyupant,

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to the Lakandula article, especially your inputs regarding the nature of the deal between Legaspi, Sulayman, Matanda, and Lakandula.

I'm sure by now you've noticed that I reverted a few of your earlier edits on the page. This was just regarding two points:

• i. The additional paragraph regarding Magat Salamat was only removed because it duplicated of an already-existing paragraph; and
• ii. The section on Tondo's power and influence was removed for several reasons

• iia: It contradicts a number of the scholarly sources already cited by the article;
• iib: It had many non-neuteral words or had a non-neutral tone; and
• iiic: its sources seem to fall below the standards for Wikipedia references.

As a new user, I hope you don't mind a number of friendly tips regarding the tone of the writing and the quality of sources, because I'm trying to help keep this page as scholarly and as neutral as possible.

This isn't the exact wording of Wikipedia policy, because I've tried to adapt them based on my experiences editing many of Wikipedia's Historical Filipiniana articles. But this is the best summary of Wikipedia Policy I can come up with at the moment.

Regarding Tone - Wikipedia has a policy of keeping the language of articles as neutral. The poliocy expressed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("NPOV") is considered a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. (the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".) A more detailed discussion of NPOV is at Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Unfortunately, Historical Filipiniana is a young field, and sources often have some form of ideological or scholarly bias, depending on when they were written, what groups the authors were connected to, etc. Also, Historical Filipiniana is continuously evolving based on more-thorough scholarly analysis.

So it's particularly important to find sources that are as factually neutral as possible (more on this in the next section, "On Sources"), and to use language that is as emotionally and ideologically neutral as possible.

Wikipedia's Manual of Style suggests that flowery or grandiose words be avoided. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery) These include words like "Words to watch: legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique..."

As the policy says, "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

This is particularly important for pages like Lakandula, because many of the tertiary sources in Historical Filipiniana (and even some of the Secondary ones) tend to portray history with a romanticized slant which Wikipedia tries to avoid. In fact, the current Lakandula article still has many issues, but we editors have slowly been working to make it more neutral.

The Wikipedia policies I linked to above provide more tips on wikipedia's approach language and neutrality, but of course one also has to talk about the importance of sources.

On Sources - As per Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), Wikipedia prefers reliable Secondary sources.

Best examples in Historical Filipiniana include articles from certified academic journals; books published by the academic presses (Ateneo University Press, Univeristy of Hawaii Press, UP Press, etc); publications from government history and culture agencies (NHCP, NCCA, NCMF, CCP, etc); and established publishing houses (Anvil, New Day, Tuttle, ArtPostAsia, etc).

Based on Wikipedia policy, these Secondary sources usually take precedence over Tertiary sources (Newspaper and Magazine articles, websites, elementary/highschool textbooks, etc. which use them as reference.) They also take precedence over Primary sources (Pigaffetta, Riquel, Plasencia, Loarca, etc) because Primary sources often need scholarly interpretation to put the views of the authors into a broader historical context. These other sources can be cited, but the facts they assert usually need to be corroborated by reliable secondary sources.

In the case of sources you recently cited, the NHCP artcle you cited is an ideal source. It's the NCHP, so that's a highly reliable Secondary Source. However, FFE Magazine, which seems to be a tertiary source, is less so, since the identities of the publisher and writer are not clearly indicated, and their academic credentials are less clear. Kahimyang.com's documentation is also less-than desirable: although it identifies the author/publisher, it does not state the author's credentials or explain how the article has been subject to a scholarly review process.

As you can see, Wikipedia's standards and policies make the process of improving an article a slow, very carefull process. But the aim of course is to develop the best possible, factually neutral, article.

I hope you feel free to continue to contribute. Looking forward to working with you more on the Lakandula article.

Yours, Alternativity (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Hi Lyupant. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I see that Alternativity has given you some good advice. I hope you don't mind if I share some as well: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Lyupant, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Lead Belly have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Braeden Lemasters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saving Grace

Tanith Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sabella

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lenka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Blue Skies, Heal and The Bright Side

Braeden Lemasters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saving Grace

Ian Sinclair (voice actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Lyupant. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Sonia Ben Ammar . Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits at Doris Stokes

Hi, this is just to let you know that I reverted your edits at Doris Stokes. Some of them more-or-less duplicated existing content (e.g. the explanation of why she became a medium). Stokes' memoirs are also not reliable sources - because they testify to extraordinary things, we need more than just her word for it.

I'm sorry to have had to revert your work, but I would welcome further edits as long as they are verifiable from high-quality sources. Vashti (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article John Stone (martyr) ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abadir and Iraja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kemet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen III of Moldavia

Please be aware that your additions (which are quite redundant to begin with) were sourced from spamlinks and zero-quality sites (not to mention forums), and please make sure you read and follow the cornerstone wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You have responses.22:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraham of Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vladimir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

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, as you did to Le Pen. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia

Hi Lyupant. I work on conflict of interest and paid editing issues, along with my regular editing. Some of your edits to contemporary subjects appear promotional. It also seems that you might have relationships outside of Wikipedia with some other editors here, with whom you may be coordinating. That is somewhat problematic per our WP:MEAT policy. It appears that there may be some external interest driving some of your edits. I'm providing you with our conflict of interest notice and will have some other comments and questions below.

Hello, Lyupant. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with subjects you have edited, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? Or maybe you are editing at someone's direction? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection or outside direction, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your wide explanations about rules of wikioedia which deal with conflict of interests and with diclosure of the perties involved in promotion of some articles. But it has no connection to me at all. I don't defend interests of anybody and don't have any connection with subject I am writing about. I am absolutely neutral and objective as I can while editing articles. I was very surprised that you had such an impression about my editing. Thanks for understanding. Lyupant (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked you two questions - (1) if you are connected with other users here, and (2) you have any connections with any subjects you have edited or (3) are editing at someone else's direction. You answered #2 but not #1 or #3.

Further would you please explain any connections you have with the following accounts, which all seem to be connected, and are editing similar topics in similar ways:

• Lyupant your first edit was 15:51, 26 December 2017, you have interacted with Daryazinkovskaya, Elenafesenko, Annutack, Eugenialiutaya
• Olgagarden first edit 20:05, 8 January 2018 (interacted with no one else)
• Eugenialiutaya first edit 15:34, 10 January 2018 (interacted with Olgagarden, Seredushka94, Annutack)
• Annutack, first edit 18:04, 18 February 2018 (interacted with no one else)
• Daryazinkovskaya first edit, 19:37, 24 February 2018 (interacted with no one else)
• Seredushka94 first edit 13:56, 25 February 2018 (interacted with no one else)
• Elenafesenko first edit 21:24, 26 February 2018 (interacted with no one else)

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My answer: 1. I have no connections with other editors here exсept such ones as with you that give me some advice about my editing or I ask somebody help on one or another question on Help desk. 2. I have no connection with the subject I edit. 3. I am not leaded by anyone. And I have the right to write any editors in wikipedia to help make it better so what do you want to be explained I don't understand and why should I. These edits may look similar because I used "An extended welcome" edit of user:Ronz to me, that's all, but I think it's not forbided. Lyupant (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Atkins (nutritionist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing 1

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Robert Atkins (nutritionist) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Which ones? I understood, thanksLyupant (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Poromotional editing 2

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Barefoot. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain please which edits about Barefoot are regarded as promotional? I otherwise added some edits to criticism section. Isn't it objective to support all points of view?Lyupant (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This sentence, " Isn't it objective to support all points of view?" has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works.

What neutral point of view means, is that we summarize what the most reliable sources say about things and we give WP:WEIGHT as they do.

You have added unsourced and badly sourced promotional content about alternative medicine to two articles in the last day. Please stop doing this. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions: 1 of 3

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Notice of discretionary sanctions: 2 of 3

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Notice of discretionary sanctions: 3 of 3

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Robert Atkins (nutritionist) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Jen Consalvo

Lyupant, I'm afraid that your edits to Jen Consalvo look extremely promotional and draw from poor, promotional sources, the kind that's typical from paid editors. Continued editing like this is inappropriate, whether or not you actually are being paid for the editing. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't understand why are you talking about promotions all the time. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and I don't promote anybody here. I just took information from the internet sources, the different ones, and they are all completed each other and can't be all promotional. So what is promotional abou it, can you give me an example, please.Lyupant (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What caught my attention was your using TechCo Media's own profiles to expand the article. Working from poor, promotional sources like those is always problematic without also having better, independent sources for guidance.

You also apparently did not notice that the information in those profiles showed that other information in the article was out of date. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And you subsequently edited Nofel Izz . How did you come across Nofel Izz ? -Ronz (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

About TechoCo Media I had no idea that it's promotional - I pay more attention to this source to not use it further on. About Nofel Izz - what's wrong with it? I edit any article on wikipeadia that took my attention, editing something other I came across it and it seems me interesting that He is not only entrepreneur but also a musician, an actor and tried to find something interesting about him. And for I am not so experienced in such things, could you please send me a list of such promotional sites for me to not work with them and not to use them. Thanks. Lyupant (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Before I respond, it would help if you answered a question: Are you being assigned articles to work on? --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your question about? Assigned by whom? Lyupant (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nofel Izz is an extremely obscure article to work on, as is Jen Consalvo, Sujit Nair, and other articles you've edited. I'm wondering how you chose to edit them, other than being given them as assignments by someone else. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no one here to tell me what to edit or not edit. It's my choice to edit the articles about entrepreneurs, and these two articles happened to be among them. In addition there are no indications on these articles that they are especial and it's not recomended to edit them. And I can't understand what else do you want to hear.Lyupant (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear how you found the articles, other than being assigned them or finding them listed somewhere.

As far as your question, About Nofel Izz - what's wrong with it?: The sources were poor and promotional, and the information added to the article was promotional in nature. I would hope by now that you are able to identify primary sources, and be familiar with reliable sources for biographical information. I think that both Alternativity and myself, in our very first comments to you, brought up these points. It's over two months later and you seem to be still struggling to understand what we wrote then and the subsequent comments on those matters. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

My notes on editings

I didn't wait such welcome after which any desire to edit Wikipedia disappears.Lyupant (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing once again

This edit by you is WP:SPAM [1]. I'd hoped by now that you could refrain from such blatantly promotional editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reverting of this edit, I have hesitated to add it or not and in which form. May be I can refer to it as "see also" or "further reading"?Lyupant (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Only if your goal is to get your account blocked for spamming. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lyupant. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template broken

The template {{translated page}} in Talk:Kurt Christoph von Königsmarck is broken. Since you added it, could you also fix it? Thanks you in advance. --ZandDev (msg) 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)