User talk:Lisiunia

Body piercing
Thank you for contributing on information on what I presume to be your book (based on your username and focus) to the article on body piercing. There are a few issues with the content in relation to Wikipedia's approach which I have sought to address. First, I'm afraid that it was too substantial in relation to other works. As explained at guideline, our articles are typically handled like review articles, not focusing too extensively on any one viewpoint or author. (See also Neutral point of view.) I have reduced it to a proportionate size. I've also rearranged it a bit. Some of the content was not on the "reasons" for piercing, but on the demographics, and I have moved reference to that to the appropriate subsection. The other material I retained has been moved to the bottom of the "reasons" section, as it is a later study than the others.

Just as a general note, I'm afraid that the overall tone of the material may not have been exactly in keeping with Wikipedia. We strive to present overall a very businesslike approach to our articles, which are read by viewers from all over the world (see WP:TONE).

If you'd like to discuss the development of the article, it does have a talk page where you can discuss potential development with me and any other interested contributors; you can find it at Talk:Body piercing. Since the article has under review and been judged a "good article" by Wikipedia's standards (about 1 in 321 of Wikipedia's articles meet that standard), we do need to be careful to keep expansion within policies and guidelines so that it is not delisted. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. I'm happy to try to help reach a state with the content that you feel accurately reflects your book and the findings you present there. I've changed the text to "contest heteronormativity" accordingly. I'm also happy to correct the page range; unfortunately, we can't reference your book at all without giving pages from which the content. I presumed the page range you gave covered all the content you've referenced, and it's better to over-reference than under-reference. Can you tell me what specific pages our readers can check to verify the content that's been retained on demographics and reasons for piercing? I can then provide the specific pages and retain the text.


 * In terms of the content that's been reviewed, it's still viewable...not only by administrators, but by anyone. Except in rare circumstances, Wikipedia does retain everything in page history, so the material can be easily reviewed if we'd like to request further input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice Di Micele
Meant to ping you in my edit summary but messed up the link so I'm writing here instead. Please add your comments to the ongoing discussion in the mainspace page as is standard for AfDs. People aren't going to see your argument if you place it on a separate talk page for an AfD. Your potentially valid argument can be nothing but invalidated if it's not part of the main discussion and other editors don't know about it. QuietHere (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * oops thank you Lisiunia (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest editing
Hello, Lisiunia. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Alice Di Micele, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisiunia. I've added the above template because it contains links to relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline pages that you might find helpful. Your account was inactive from March 20, 2018, until just a few days ago when you suddenly showed up to make edits to Alice Di Micele. This is unusual in and of itself, but particularly so since the Di Micele article was at the time being discussed at Articles for Deletion. Often, not always but often, when something like this happens it's because someone connected to the subject of the article has either been asked by the subject directly for assistance or has a personal/professional connection to the subject and just wants to help. Given that a least one other account who has edited the article has identified themselves as a personal friend of Di Micele and that Di Micele herself has also tried to make changes to the article, your editing as well is giving off a fairly strong WP:APPARENTCOI and it seems to be more that just coincidental. So, if you're by chance connected to Di Micele in any way, it's very important to follow relevant policies and guidelines, and be as transparent as possible about your connection. This will make it much easier for others to help you if you start running into problems and it will also make it less likely for others to assume that Di Micele is trying to exert some form of editorial control over the article via proxies. Finally, if you've also been editing the article while WP:LOGGEDOUT (intentionally or not), then be careful because this can also cause others to be suspicious. It's best to try and always use the same account to edit the same article because it helps avoid mistaken assumptions of multiple accounts being used improperly. If you did edit while logged out you and are worried about your IP be visible in the article's page history, you should follow the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT and email oversight to request assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to log in. My work here is done. Lisiunia (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the aforementioned five bullet points apply to me or my edits. Lisiunia (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but your account was inactive for more than four years before suddenly showing up out of the blue to edit an article that was being discussed for deletion. I'm willing to take you at your word but others may bring up the subject again. If they do, don't be perturbed; just let them know you're not connected to Di Micele and haven't been interacting with her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding citations to articles
Although Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred citation style as explained in WP:CITESTYLE, you might want to take a look at WP:CITINGSOURCES for some general information on how Wikipedia expects citations to be added to articles. One thing that is different between Wikipedia and perhaps some other publications is that parenthetical referencing is no longer an accepted citation style for Wikipedia's purposes as explained in WP:PAREN. Another difference is that, for the most part, citations (i.e. footnote markers) are added after punctuation per WP:REFPUNC. Although the parenthetical references you added are no longer visible to readers, they are still visible in the editing window for reference. If you'd like to try and fix them, you might find using a WP:CITATIONTEMPLATE helpful to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)