User talk:Kristirae

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kristirae! I am Jojhutton and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Jojhutton (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question[edit]

Can you let me know what page that your client was trying to edit. There could be any number of reasons why this happened, but until I see the potential edit, it would be premature for me to come to any conclusions or give any advice.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the page and edits in question I saw several issues with the wording.

Short version: The edits were made in a deliberate attempt to make the article's subject look better. This is what we call POV. And all articles should be written from a neutral point of view.

Long Version: There are literally hundreds of policies and guidelines on wikipedia establishing how articles should bee written and how those editing articles should act. There are three Core content policies that are strictly enforced. The first is WP:NPOV, which means that all articles should be written from a Neutral point of view and not give undue weight to any one viewpoint over another. The second is WP:Verifiability. This simply states that information being added to any article should be attributed to a reliable source. Without this sourcing, it becomes impossible to determine whether something written on any page is true or not. The third is WP:No Original Research, which means that an editor cannot simply add something to a page, just because they witnessed it or know it to be true. The edits on that page seemed to violate all three of those core content policies, which is why they were reverted quickly.

Longer version: There are other minor issues as well.

1. The user name User:CommunicationsCoordinator would suggest a single purpose account. This means that the account seems to be only created with the express intent of doing one thing. In this case, to edit a single article in order to improve the POV.

2. Edit Warring is extremely wrong on wikipedia and it seems that there were several attempts to add information, even after being reverted. All disputes should be resolved on the talk page so that there can be a consensus.

3. There should be no page ownership. There are guidelines on how to edit pages about ourselves, or in this case about a client. Reading this should help in this case.

4. There was also some obvious sock puppetry going on as there appeared to be at least two accounts trying to add the information. The other being an ip. This is a problem on wikipedia and is usually taken very seriously.

I know that to someone not familiar with editing wikipedia, all of these rules may seem overwhelming. They were to me at first. I consider editing wikipedia to be a fun hobby (like talking on a Ham Radio), and I hope most others do as well, but alas, there are many out there who seems to take all of this way too seriously. Don't fret. Just take some time a click on some of the links that I provided and get youself accustomed to some of the guidelines. There's no way to memorize them all, but as long as you have a general idea of what they are, you may come to realize why those edits were reverted.

Thanks and good luck.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help earlier. I am working on the article, but there doesn't seem to be a way to edit it... Who do I contact for that? Sorry for so many newbie questions....

Kristirae (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article[edit]

Looking at your article, I have noticed there are a few issues with the references. The <ref></ref> tags are supposed to go next to the statement that it proves is true, not in the references section. The references section is for displaying the full list of references, like this:

This is the sentence you are going to verify with a reference. <ref>[http://www.example.com|Add you reference name here]</ref>.

Then, in the references section, you need to add a {{reflist}} tag, to make sure the list of all the references with the <ref></ref> tags appear there. I hope you understand! Chevy monte carlo - alt 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me a message if you need any more help. Thanks. At the moment, I don't think the article is really ready to be moved. Chevy monte carlo - alt 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]