User talk:Janssenben

Welcome

Hello, Janssenben, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Janssenben, good luck, and have fun. TungstenTime (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Janssenben. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Georgina Lara Booth, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I have no conflict interest at all. I have just added content based on what I have found online and it is not justifiable to remove everything without discussion - for example that the subject is a "website editor". The subject has been recognized by many international organizations as a humanitarian, journalist and more. Mashable is a large international outlet for which the subject is a journalist/interviewer/reporter/etc and not a "website editor". Very open to having a friendly discussion here for possible re-edits! Reverting content that bas been removed without discussion, so that we can discuss any possibly re-edits together here. I am just someone interested in expanding articles about women on Wikipedia and started with this subject that interested me. Janssenben (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense but since you have been editing, outside of minor edits on your first day which were mostly to articles about men, your sole focus has been Georgina Lara Booth so you are not expanding content about women. You are expanding content about one woman. Another editor has restored Drmies much needed cleanup of the article so as it stands consensus is with Drmies. S0091 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi S0091, I started with this female subject that I have an interest in, but I am interested in starting new articles about other female subjects in the future. I am very much open to friendly discussions for improvements. Thanks in advance.Janssenben (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, your statements are not convincing given you have been editing here for 3 years. Keep in mind having a COI is not the worst thing but not being transparent about it is problematic and does lead to editors being blocked. Either way, there are reasons are you are not capable of editing about Booth in line with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and are exhibited ownership behaviour, even if that may not be your intention. S0091 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is seriously not my intention at all and I am happy to be transparant about my interests. I do not see how being interested in a particular subject to expand would be problematic, but I understand your points and feedback. Again, I am interested in creating more articles eventually about women, but I have been interested in editing this specific subject that I have already invested a lot of my time in to improve. I wasn't aware that I was acting like I am an owner of an article and that is not my intention at all - I am just editing out of interest and good faith, but I see your point and I appreciate your feedback, which I will certainly take into account to improve my contributions to Wikipedia. Janssenben (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read through the NPOV policy I linked above. If you want to include content, you need reliable secondary independent sources. Read also primary sources which is what Mashable is and fine to use to support her role there but not much else. You might also find WP:RSP helpful which lists some of the most common sources along with consensus regarding their reliability. Mashable is listed as a poor source and from I can tell specifically with nl.mashable is that it's an SEO content farm filled with unmarked sponsored content and no journalistic standards. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your feedback - I appreciate it. I will certainly take a look at the various policies and editing info, etc. I have seen Mashable refs being used in many different articles over the years on Wikipedia and they do have journalistic standards from what I have seen, including their other regions , but again I will certainly brush up on my knowledge to make improvements on my edits. Thanks, S0091 Janssenben (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think Mashable is a reputable source then I don't think you understand what a reliable source is and it being used doesn't mean it should be used. Likewise, just because an article exists doesn't mean it meets the criteria for an article and is not a valid basis for creating other articles like it. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again for your feedback - and I get your points. I will take a look at everything again re Wikipedia policies to be more aware of everything and improve my edits. Have a good weekend. Janssenben (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Georgina Lara Booth. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

If you keep it up, you will find yourself blocked. I am giving you every benefit of doubt but you are not helping yourself. At this point, you should start a discussion on the talk page before adding any additional content. My best advise is to be concise with your request and include sources meeting the criteria I mentioned above. S0091 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Maxine Beneba Clarke. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You decided to get pointy with other BLPs? Please don't. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]