User talk:Yummyan

Hello, Yummyan. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Fiona Graham, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Yummyan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yummyan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Fiona Graham, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. DAJF (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and odd wording in Fiona Graham article

Hi, Yummyan. I have reverted your recent edits to the Fiona Graham article, and while I included an explanatory edit summary, I thought you might wish to see in more detail why all three of your changes were problematic.

Firstly, you added the wording "According to unknown reports quoted by The Wall Street Journal". Apart from the fact that "unknown reports" doesn't make sense (the reports are surely known, even if the sources are anonymous), the news article in question just says "according to reports".
Secondly, you changed the wording to read "A member of Asakusa Geisha Association told local reports that..." If you are native English speaker, I don't think it is necessary to explain why this doesn't make sense and does not constitute an improvement over the original wording.
Finally, you changed the wording to read "dangerous as a backpacker". In my vocabulary, a "backpacker" is a person, so I'm not sure why a building would be declared "dangerous as a backpacker". Moreover, the news report in question does not use this phrasing, so it does not improve the accuracy of the article.

I hope this clarifies why I reverted your edits, but if you still feel I was wrong, please feel free to comment here or on the Talk page of the Fiona Graham article, explaining why you think the current wording is wrong or needs changing. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]