User talk:Rhian Griffiths

Rhian Griffiths, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Rhian Griffiths! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rhian Griffiths, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Boson (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For tips on the layout and formatting of the article, you may find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout helpful, together with its links to other parts of the Manual of Style, including, for instance the standard content of the first few sentences of the introduction (lead). For instance, articles should start with a "definition" of the topic, with the name of the topic (and alternate names) in bold type, typically something like

"The Church of St Michael the Archangel, also known as the Church of St Michael and All Angels is the parish church of the village of Warfield in Berkshire. "

The main Manual of Style page explains things like when to use boldface (very rarely), italics, etc. but this is not something to worry too much about, since other editors will usually tidy up any formatting problems. If you have any problems or questions, please feel free to ask me for assistance on my talk page.

You may also find it useful to look at some featured articles on similar topics (e.g. churches) at Wikipedia:Featured articles. --Boson (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Boson (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Warfield Church has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Warfield Church. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Warfield Church has been accepted[edit]

Warfield Church, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two improvements which you could now usefully make:

Add links to the new article from other relevant articles, as your new article is currently an orphan.
Add appropriate categories to the new article,as it is currently uncategorised.

--David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Rhian Griffiths. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Warfield Church, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Warfield Church 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.
I have started a discussion on the article's talk page, which, in the interests of forming a consensus you are welcome- even expected- to join. But you should also read WP:BRD- which, briefly summarised, suggests that having made a bold edit, which is then reverted, the next stage- with no further reversions- should be the discussion. Edit warring ≠ the answer. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]