User talk:Clarawegenast

April 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page ReliefWeb has been reverted. Your edit here to ReliefWeb was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/user/ReliefWeb/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarawegenast, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to ReliefWeb have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to ReliefWeb was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/reliefweb/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Clarawegenast. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article ReliefWeb, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  10:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

ReliefWeb
Hi, this is a courtesy notification to let you know that I've removed the quotes that you had added to the ReliefWeb article. I've started a discussion on the ReliefWeb talk page, in accordance with one of Wikipedia's informal dispute resolution procedures called "Bold, Revert, Discuss". The idea is that instead of just reverting each other's edits back and forth, we discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, along with other editors, and see if we can work out a solution that way. You're welcome to leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks, /wiae /tlk  10:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the remarks above concerning a conflict of interest. Also, please read the article on paid editing. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand if you think the quotes are too much, even though I intended to show which kind of people use the website and for which purpose. I did not think this was promoting. I do not understand why now all the list of services were deleted. ReliefWeb is a portal for coordinating humanitarian help and the users, specially humanitarians, need to know which kind of services are provided and through which channels.
 * If people need a detailed description of the services that ReliefWeb provides, well, that's why the ReliefWeb website exists, no? Wikipedia articles should ideally summarize, not regurgitate, information, and they should focus on what reliable sources of information that are independent of the organization have said. Put another way, we are collectively more interested in what others (reliable sources) have said about ReliefWeb than what ReliefWeb has said about itself.
 * Also, I would like to warn you about continuing to revert other people's edits on ReliefWeb. Repeatedly undoing other people's contributions is called "edit warring" on Wikipedia. If you do this without discussing the issues at hand with other contributors, you could end up being blocked from Wikipedia. Please discuss the issues at hand on the ReliefWeb talk page.
 * Finally, do you work for ReliefWeb or the OCHA? If you do, then you need to disclose this. It is required by the Wikipedia terms of use. You can learn how to disclose this at Paid-contribution disclosure. Thank you, /wiae /tlk  10:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * : The core content policies for wikipedia are Neutral point of view (here we already agreed to take out the quotes), Verifiability and No original research. The content about the services of ReliefWeb does not go against any of those policies. The only aim is to inform the type of information one can find in the website and the development of the humanitarian coordination service. Can we agree to bring back the list of services?
 * Hi, first just a note that in order for the reply to template to work, you also need to sign your talk page post with four tildes like this: ~ . Otherwise, the ping doesn't go through. Weird, I know, but it's a quirk of the syntax here on Wikipedia.
 * Regarding your substantive question, here is a useful (I hope!) way of thinking about Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, articles should primarily summarize what certain kinds of sources have said about the subject. The kinds of sources we collectively care about are:
 * reliable sources—sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking;
 * sources that are independent of the subject—this helps with neutrality and ensures that the subject has been noted by people who aren't affiliated with it; and
 * sources that have talked about the subject in some detail.
 * As a result, the place for primary sources (like an organization's website or Twitter feed) on Wikipedia is necessarily limited. Sure, primary sources can be used to confirm basic facts about the organization, like where it is headquartered or how many staff it employs. But it is not a good idea to build an entire encyclopedia article based on primary sources, because it gets away from the goal of the encyclopedia: to summarize what reliable, independent sources have said about the subject. Put another way, Wikipedia articles should not act as a repository for every possible fact about the subject, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Instead, articles should concentrate on what reliable, independent sources have found to be noteworthy about the subject.
 * In ReliefWeb's case, the "Services" section is all sourced to ReliefWeb's own website or its social media channels, and there aren't any independent sources in the section talking about these services. This looks an awful lot like getting the word out about ReliefWeb and its services, which is something Wikipedia tries to avoid. (See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion for more information on this.) If reliable, independent sources have talked about, say, the ReliefWeb Data Snapshots, it would certainly be appropriate to discuss them in the article. However, if no reliable, independent sources have given these Snapshots any coverage, then it's much harder to argue that they should be discussed in the article at all.
 * Finally, I notice you have not answered whether you are being paid to edit the ReliefWeb Wikipedia article. Remember that if you are, it is mandatory to disclose this. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk  01:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Your recent editing history at ReliefWeb 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)