User talk:Chriss1991

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Chriss1991, 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 Fiona Graham has 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:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. DAJF (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note about need for reliable sources[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your interest in the Geisha article. Unfortunately, the statement you recently added to the article about the American geisha Kimicho not yet being "introduced" did not appear to be supported by the source quoted. If you could perhaps point out where exactly in the interview this is mentioned, or otherwise add a reliable source for this claim, then it will OK to re-add the comment.
I gather you are new to Wikipedia, so please take the time to read up on the guidelines about reliable sources and also biographies about living persons, as these will also be very relevant to the Fiona Graham article, which always seems to attract enthusiastic fans eager to add details but which are unfortunately not backed up by reliable sources. If you can spend a short while familiarizing yourself with the guidelines, it will save you wasting time in the future if your edits have to be reverted as unsourced or unverified. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm DAJF. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Geisha, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Fiona Graham. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Fiona Graham 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. DAJF (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest on Fiona Graham article[edit]

Hi again. It is pretty clear that you have a conflict of interest regarding the Fiona Graham article, so I would strongly recommend that you stop and read through the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and also Wikipedia:Autobiography. Both explain how editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about subjects with which they have a close connection or about themselves, so you really should stick to voicing editing requests on the talk page rather than diving in and removing parts you don't like yourself. You may wish to have look at the Debito Arudou article as a fairly good example of how the subject of an article makes comments about biographical content that is not always flattering. You have to remember that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia - not a vehicle for promoting individuals or their work. Anyway, I hope you can consider these suggestions seriously. --DAJF (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]