User talk:Llj221
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Llj221, 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
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
- Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- The Signpost, our newspaper.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Marchjuly's revert: the content you added was much too detailed (too much personal detail, too much background, too much extraneous information), and too much of it was not properly sourced--Wikipedia requires secondary, not primary sources. Smaller steps are more likely to succeed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Floyd McKissick Jr. edits
[edit]Hi Llj221. I saw the major revision you did to Floyd McKissick Jr. and reverted it for the time being to allow a discussion about it to take place at Talk:Floyd McKissick Jr.. Some of the content seems a bit non-neutral in tone for Wikipedia's purposes and much seems to be sourced directly to McKissick's own official website, which is not always a good thing when it comes to articles such as this. It's probably best to be a bit cautious here, especially since this article has had some issue in the past with people inappropriately adding/removing content. Wikipedia has to be especially careful when it comes to articles about living people, so please don't take my reversion of your edit personally. Wikipedia just wants to make sure article content is in accordance with its policies and guidelines.
Finally, I'm just curious, but your first edit anywhere on Wikipedia (at least to this account) was made to this article. Such a thing is not really unusual so to speak, but the ammount of detailed content you added gives the impression that you might be connected to McKissick in some way. If you are connected to McKissick in someway, personally or professionally, then there's a good chance Wikipedia would consider you to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict of interest editing, but it does highly discourage it and expect such editors to adhere to certain guidelines. You can find out more about these guidelines in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly. Thank you very much for your feedback and I apologize for the delayed response. I am a student and not personally affiliated with Senator McKissick. I conducted extensive research for a school project on civil rights in North Carolina and I thought it would also be a nice idea to update the Wikipedia page as well since it seemed to be rather sparse considering his contributions to the state. While I am not taking your feedback personally, it does disappoint me that all of the hours of hard work and effort I put into updating the page has been reverted. What additional advice or better approach can you provide for getting the page updated as I still would like to contribute to it. Thanks so much for your help. Llj221 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- In some cases, it's OK to be WP:BOLD, but in others it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS; the latter is especially true when dealing with articles about living persons. Maybe as suggested by Drmies above, you should consider making smaller changes which can be supported by citations to reliable sources, preferably soources which are secondary and independent, and discussing any major changes on the article talk page first.
Content should be encyclopedically relevant and neutrally worded; this may require a bit of self-assessing on your part. It's not Wikipedia's role to build up or tear down the subjects of articles; content is only supposed to reflect what is found in reliable sources and then is supposed to be summarized in your own words. Information about McKissick's family, etc. might be relevant as part of an early-life section, but the article content focus shouldn't too much on them; if any family members are Wikipedia notable in their own right, perhaps such details could be added to Wikipedia articles written about them. Moreover, there's no need for a long list of each bill of legislation that McKissick has been associated with; his political positions can be summarized and any Wikipedia notable legislations (i.e., anything which might have a Wikipedia article written about it) can be nmentioned and linked to, but the article is not a resume/CV for McKissick. Same goes for any awards or honors received.
Thank you for clarifying whether you have a conflict of interest. Please understand that editors will assume in good faith that you are who you say you are until your edits give them reason to think otherwise;so, as long as your edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, you should be fine. Just fair warning, there are quite a number of editors who have lots of years of experience detecting undeclared COI editing, so it's best to be up front about any such thing right from the start. There are not only human editors monitoring articles, but also various bots as well.
Finally, since you say your editing might be the result of a student project, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Student assignments and Wikipedia:Training/For students. Teachers and students often see Wikipedia as a great place for school projects, but the reality is often that the two are not a very good match. School projects tend to be more about the teacher/student/school than Wikipedia and often are more original research than not. If your teacher/school is working/worked through the m:Wiki Education Foundation, your class should've been assigned a WikiEd advisor. This would be a good person to ak any questions you have about Wikipedia or editing. You can also ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- In some cases, it's OK to be WP:BOLD, but in others it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS; the latter is especially true when dealing with articles about living persons. Maybe as suggested by Drmies above, you should consider making smaller changes which can be supported by citations to reliable sources, preferably soources which are secondary and independent, and discussing any major changes on the article talk page first.