User talk:Cyrifa

Welcome!
Hello, Cyrifa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Encyclopædia Britannica. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 03:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Advertising
Hello, Cyrifa. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello Cyrifa. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., and that 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:Cyrifa. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 - Message Response
Dear Rhododendrites,

Forgive me if this is the incorrect way to respond - I could not figure out another way to respond to your message.

In response to your request for a response, please know that I am not a paid-contributor to these articles, but rather a fan of Britannica who read about the anniversary, is familiar with the company and noticed some out-of-date information in the Wikipedia articles. I am new to Wikipedia and my mistake was failing to know all the rules (use of (R) and PR as a cite) prior to inserting factual information from my cited sources - I meant no harm. As the "talk" rules say:

Please do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach.

Also, it is my opinion that the information I attempted to add to sections and information already in included in the EB article ("product offerings," "staff," and "awards") was factual in nature and simply brought those sections up to date. This was my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia article and I'm now not sure how to proceed. Thanks for your time. Cyrifa (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Responding in this manner works just fine. I watch pages after leaving messages on them, so saw this. If you want to notify someone that you've responded, you can do that by adding, e.g..
 * In general, material on Wikipedia should come from reliable secondary sources. More on that here: WP:RS. Material shouldn't typically come from the subject itself (that includes press releases). In terms of presentation, basically, if it looks like it could be on a company website, it probably doesn't belong. Wording like "product offerings," for example, isn't typically going to be seen as encyclopedic. The material in the article should also be proportional to the coverage of the subject as a whole. In other words, to what extent do reliable secondary sources talk about the staff members, and what is the proportion of that coverage in relation to, say, coverage of their editorial processes or history? Some times are taken for granted as part of writing about a company or a book regardless of coverage, like the number of pages and certain key people. What's considered "key people" is subjective, but for a reference work is typically limited to the editor and publisher, and then included not in a dedicated section about staff but briefly mentioned in an overview and/or the "infobox" (the box in the top-right of many articles).
 * Sometimes a good way to get started is to draft material in your sandbox (see the link in the top-right corner while you're logged in) and get some feedback about it or to propose changes on the article's talk page. Up to you. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)