User talk:Charliefanuk

Hello, Charliefanuk, and welcome to Wikipedia. A user has expressed concerns about your edits to the Charlie Hunnam article. You seem to be eliminating the links to one fansite in favour of links to another. You should be aware that the link you're adding appears to violate WP:EL, both because it's an unofficial site (and the policy states that "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.") and because the site appears to require a login. In addition, if you are connected with the site and are posting links to it for promotional reasons, you may also be violating WP:SPAM.

Please don't hesitate to contact me either here or on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Sarcasticidealist 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Saracasticidealist, Thanks for message & pointing out my errors umm sorry I don't really understand codes & stuff as for {eliminating the links to one fansite in favour of links to another" not true I'm connected to both  one I owned for short time & 1 have known owner for a while now. Both I keep updated on lastest projects where I can. I copied & pasted in the end to get it right after numerous of wrong attempts must have done something wrong then. Sorry but you've lost me with "violate WP:EL" think I'd better start reading up. Also logging in you only have to log into forums to post messages not on to site themselves. I didn't realise that was spamming either sorry I can only appolize wasn't intended to delete anything that has no purpose,I think i'll just stick to reading what's written & leave editing to you professionals until I've got it sussed.


 * Hi Charliefanuk. I certainly didn't intend to give you the impression that only "professionals" should be editing Wikipedia - that's entirely contrary to the spirit of the project!  In fact, one of Wikipedia's core policies is be bold, which means that you shouldn't hesitate to make edits to the project; they can always be reverted later if they're a problem.


 * In fact, this whole issue would have been much less problematic if all of these changes had been made by a registered user, because we could have discussed things on the talk page like this, and we probably wouldn't have had to go the semi-protection route. I'd encourage you to edit, not be afraid of making mistakes, and contact me if you have questions.  Happy editing! Sarcasticidealist 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there again call me Tina (charliefanuk nickname & stuck I'm afraid), you didn't give me that impression, what I meant was i'll leave it to those that know what they are doing (i call those people professionals) like I said I'm not good but I'm learning. I've added some info on Green Street Titles, this actually came from the writer to me, I asked him when I read what had been written. That's ok to use yes? I'm afraid I didn't put direct links & didn't noticed till I'd sent it. I think I was registered at time  but didn't sign in coz I'd fortten user name...I then just rejoined. (I'm not always the sharpest knife in the box I'm afraid)i don't even know what I deleted....jeezzz I was moaning about deletion & it appears it was me oopps. Noelia & Monika so gonna kill me. Please check my add to Green Street Titles I would appreciate it. I've been reading different info but at the moment its way over my head sorry. Charliefanuk aka Tina.


 * Hi Tina, I can't actually find the edits you're talking about. Could you give me links to them?  To do that, go to the pages that you were editing, click "history", find your edit, click "diff", copy the url that's in your browser, and post it here. Sarcasticidealist 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again bits I added were here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Hunnam

Tina


 * The one danger with what you wrote there is that it could violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which states basically that you should be able to look up any piece of information that appears on Wikipedia in a published source (it doesn't mean it has to be easy to look up - for example, you could take information from a 1965 copy of some newspaper. Most people probably wouldn't have a copy of that newspaper handy, but somebody who was suspicious theoretically could pay a visit to the Library of Congress and dig up the issue to confirm the fact.)  Information that somebody told you directly isn't verifiable, so somebody might take issue with it.  It would be better if you could find the same information published somewhere.  Also, it would have to be from a reliable source - if somebody wrote on their blog that something was true, that probably wouldn't satisfy WP:V because there's no way of knowing if that person was making it up or was confused or something.  Of course, if the person writing it on the blog was a specific person who would be in a position to know - for example, if this writer kept a blog non-anonymously in which he talked about this movie's development - then it probably would count as a reliable source.  None of this is black and white, but the basic rule is that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify one thing: writing what you wrote on the talk page *doesn't* violate the verifiability policy, so you didn't do anything wrong. But if you'd added that information to the article itself, it likely would have been deleted as unverifiable.