User talk:AspiringCheetah

Welcome!

Hello, AspiringCheetah, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wollies animal Project, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wollies animal Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wollies animal Project, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction

Hi. Please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a fansite. If you really believe there is an encyclopedic value to adding a list of countries a band has visited, please at least discuss and gain consensus on Talk:One Direction first. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor ownership?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia, joined mostly because I love knowledge and sharing, and honestly I've seen many articles on wikipedia which are one-sided, so I thought I'd join to make them more balanced because they can cause a lot of damage if one-sided. When I started adding some legit content to some, with proper references, they were just removed by editors, some even without proper reasons or discussion on the talk page. I don't understand how that is allowed? Surely someone should have a good reason for removing something? I don't want to just revert and remove their changes without discussion first, but it seems wiki has some editor ownership problems... AspiringCheetah (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah[reply]

Hi AspiringCheetah, welcome aboard. The thing you need to remember is that Wikipedia works by a combination of sourcing and consensus - you may find that what you think a source says may not be the same interpretation as another editor's, or that what you consider a reliable source may not be thought of as such by your colleagues. The best way to go about resolving such disagreements is the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy or BRD. You make a bold edit, changing something; another editor reverts it, disagreeing; you then have a discussion on the article's talkpage about it. THe idea is that you put forth the reasons for your edit, the other editor explains why they reverted, and you proceed to work out content that you are both happy with, which can then go into the article.

As a new user, you'll probably find the first few times you do this that there is a good reason, based in policy, for the revert - as you get more seasoned, you'll know these policies better and will be able to make better edits and hopefully encounter fewer disagreements. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Providence (religious movement) 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. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, AspiringCheetah. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Providence (religious movement), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. That you have a COI here is patently obvious - you need to declare it and follow the COI guidelines. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Providence (religious movement)

I am opposed to the recent addition to Providence (religious movement), cf. my comment in Talk:Providence (religious movement) (Special:Permalink/816614442#Removal of edits without legit reason). The addition of Providence (religious movement) aka Christian Gospel Mission to List of religions and spiritual traditions in this diff is a misunderstanding. Christian Gospel Mission is a minor sect mostly known for its founder being a convicted serial rapist. Sam Sailor 14:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Ravensfire. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sam Sailor 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: That was my problem with Jytdog's original actions. My edits were just reverted, with two different accusations made against me without proof. Of course I was upset. If comments had been made about the content I posted, I would not have been upset. That has happened on multiple other pages, with constructive feedback and input from other editors which has taught me how to improve my edits. Then to be, according to my experience 'ganged up on' by others who seem interested in the page, is not good for 'the community and frankly discourages a new editor like myself.AspiringCheetah (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah[reply]

I have no idea how your edit warring in Providence (religious movement) with Jytdog fits into my warning about your personal attack against Ravensfire. If you are upset about your additions being reverted, Wikipedia is not necessarily the place for you. Did you consider starting your own blog about Jung Myung-seok and Christian Gospel Mission? That may be a much more straightforward vehicle for excusing misogyny way, way beyond grab em by the pussy. Sam Sailor 18:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]