User talk:Briannasnyder83

3RR
Hi Briannasnyder83. I just wanted to draw your attention to a particular policy of WP that you're in danger of violating. It's the Three Revert Rule, and it relates - obviously - to editors making three reversions of the same material within a 24 hour period. Unfortunately, over at Virginia Heffernan, your reversions are largely against several anonymous IP editors, so the rule doesn't impact them just yet. But, if my counting's right, you're already up to (and possibly over) your limit for this 24 hour period. My suggestion is to cool it for 24 hours, and then go back. Incidentally, in case you're tempted to become an anonymous IP yourself to continue making reversions (and we've all been there), be aware that IP addresses aren't as anonymous as they appear, and if anonymous editors make the exact same edits as a named editor, Admins are liable to get suspicious and investigate.

Regarding the Virginia Heffernan article itself, as I explained on the talk page (of which, kudos to you for making your case there), my feeling is to let this particular story run out over the next week or so and then revisit it once the dust has settled. That will allow us to more readily determine whether this is actually important or, just as likely, a flash-in-the-pan. The trick with editing WP is, of course, learning to live with WP being "incorrect" until said dust has settled and the appropriate sources have arisen to make the best case. That's not easy.

Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 12:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that the 3RR does carry exemptions where potentially libellous material is added to a biography of a living persion. However, as the label of "creationist" was self-applied by Heffernan, and the material being added has largely been straightforward and not inflammatory, my feeling is that this exemption doesn't apply here. --P LUMBAGO 12:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm not a frequent Wiki editor (obviously). Thanks for your cool head, too, over on the Virginia Heffernan page. I'm resisting the urge to neutralize the wording, at your suggestion, but I think what's going on there now is punitive. "Publicly admitted" has a pejorative sound to it. There are more objective ways to put that, and also, as I've been saying, it's not exactly a fair characterization of what she actually wrote. (Curious if you read the piece? Honestly, just curious. You seem like a smart person, and if you haven't read it, I bet it would interest you.)


 * No worries. It looks like things are locked-down over at Virginia Heffernan for a bit.  Hopefully this break will allow some pause for reflection and / or further follow-up material to appear elsewhere.  I would agree, by the way, that "publicly admitted" is an unfortunate and inaccurate wording.  I have read the original article, as well as follow-up pieces elsewhere, and it really doesn't read as a straightforward piece, despite its seemingly straightforward title.  That said, in spite of this vagueness, it still communicates a friendliness towards anti-science causes (creationism, climate "skepticism").  All of which is to say that (IMHO), while the previous descriptions of the article's contents have been too blunt, there is something notable in the opinions being voiced by Heffernan.  However, I'd go back to my earlier point that seeing what happens over the next few days or weeks will clarify how we should record this in WP.  Anyway, I hope that, in spite of all of this aggravation, you're enjoying your time at WP.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again. With almost a month gone, it looks like Heffernan has largely stuck to her guns - contrary to my original suggestions.  I've tried to edit the article to better reflect and contextualise the situation now, but am still working alongside one or more anons who seem - IMHO - more keen on lambasting Heffernan than I am.  Anyway, I hope that your early experiences with WP haven't put you off for good.  People can, and do, play rough here from time to time, but in the majority things aren't as fraught as you've seen.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Heffernan
I've protected the page. Please don't restore or remove content right now. I've told the other user to first get consensus at talk. Please discuss things there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried. I've tried asking editors why they object to biographical material and information pertinent to this writer's career being included in this Wiki page. What can I do? --bsnyd 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rufus Griscom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rufus Griscom 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 Articles for deletion/Rufus Griscom& until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Caroline Webb
Hello, Briannasnyder83. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Caroline Webb, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Rentier (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jessie Janowitz for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessie Janowitz 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 Articles for deletion/Jessie Janowitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tushy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tushy 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 Articles for deletion/Tushy 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.  DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure of financial conflicts of interest is mandatory
Hello Briannasnyder83. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Briannasnyder83. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message.

Creation of any more promotional articles will result in the termination of your editing privileges without further warning. MER-C 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)