Violin1951

Welcome!

Hello, Violin1951, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Khoikhoi 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Albert Asriyan

Hi, although he/she should have provided an explanation for his edits, both of you should have respected the three-revert rule, which states that all users at Wikipedia can revert only 3 times in 24 hours. The rule is set up to encourage people to discuss their reverts rather than engaging in edit warring. I agree that he/she should not have been removing your comments from the talk page. You did the right thing by trying to engage in a discussion, but please respect the 3RR as well. 38.117.188.10 should have done the same.

Now this brings me to my second point. Because you have a personal connection to the subject of the article, I would recommend that you edit it with caution. This does not mean that you can't edit it at all, however. Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

Close relationships

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

Having said that, please keep in mind one of Wikipedia's most important policies, verifiability. Also consider whether the information you are were adding about the lawsuit is notable enough for inclusion, and whether it can be verified by reliable, third party sources. Has the information about leukemia been published in any newspapers for example? Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, so please let me know if you have any other sources for this. We as Wikipedians should be writing information on the condition that it can be verified by reliable sources. If you have any further questions please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Khoikhoi 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

---

You are correct, 38.117.188.10 did not seem responsive to your comments on the talk page and instead only deleted them. Thank you for providing a source, but it does not mention "negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment of a highly treatable form of acute leukemia." Has the press release been published anywhere so that I can view it? Typically it's best to avoid using websites directly affiliated with the subject itself as a source when it comes to things such as this. If I'm not mistaken, the case has not been settled, or has it? It is best to not mention ongoing lawsuits on Wikipedia when they are not particularly well-known or notable. Is there anything else about the lawsuit online besides the press release? We have to avoid original research as much as possible when writing articles about people we personal connections. As for 38.117.188.10, what I could do is semi-protect the page (so that only registered users can edit as opposed to IPs), but first we need to make sure that we have good enough sources so this information can possibly be included. With only the sources that we have so far, I'm not so sure that it can. Khoikhoi 04:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a comment here, at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Lawsuits. Please feel free to add your input there. I'm not so sure whether the information should be included or not -- not because I don't believe it is important, but because it may violate some of Wikipedia's policies. So please participate in the discussion there if you want. Khoikhoi 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Albert Asriyan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albert Asriyan 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/Albert Asriyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)