User talk:Plugspepinpig

Welcome!

Hello, Plugspepinpig, 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 complete 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! Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Plugspepinpig. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Stacy Schiff, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Adding theparisreview.org on numerous articles over a short period. It appears you may have an interest stake on the site you're inserting. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to declare; other than i read. Plugspepinpig (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Review is a stellar literary journal; it is highly appropriate. "In the spring of 1953, The Paris Review built from scratch a new paradigm for the art of the interview, which endures as a gold standard sixty years later."[1] if you would mass purge it from external links, start here Ernest_Hemingway#External_links. Plugspepinpig (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding external links is generally not appropriate. It’s better to use it as a reference in line, or if a source is a good general reference on a subject then create a Further Reading section. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked - "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." please do not misrepresent the policy. -- Plugspepinpig (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’ll find the bar for allowing external links is, in practice, much higher. WP:ELNO might help, or you could ask at the WP:Teahouse. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link strictly in compliance with ELNO also. you might want to quote from the specific language. i think you will find your higher bar, not in the policy, nor having a consensus, widely defied. Plugspepinpig (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will, just don’t be surprised if absolutely everyone is quickly removed by other editors. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Suzanne McConnell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suzanne McConnell 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/Suzanne McConnell 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. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Rosenberg (historian)

The article Jonathan Rosenberg (historian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:NPROF.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]