User talk:Miaeschlidt

Welcome!
Hello, Miaeschlidt, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi, I wanted to give you some notes:


 * Make sure that you check for spelling errors and the like.


 * Avoid phrases such as calling someone a culprit. This is too casual in tone and aside from this, the term culprit has negative associations. You also want to avoid anything that comes across as subjective, such as calling something powerful. Even if this is something that others may agree with, this will still be subjective to the reader.
 * Avoid writing in a persuasive manner, where you're trying to persuade the reader to see things in a certain light. As such, avoid "if... then.." and "therefore.." type statements. You also want to avoid this coming across as an essay. I would look at how other articles are written to see the style you should use. It doesn't necessarily have to be on the same topic, as in general most topics can give you a good idea of how the article should be written. Good examples are Ugg boots trademark dispute, Munchausen by Internet, or Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia.
 * This just feels too much like an essay, to be honest.


 * This needs more sourcing, as some of the content is unsourced and some of the sourcing isn't usable. For example, the Forbes link was written by one of their contributors/communityvoices as opposed to a staff member, which makes it a self-published blog since Forbes doesn't provide any editorial or verification oversight for these posts - only the staff posts. SocialMediaToday is also most likely unusable since they allow companies to pay to have content written about them and features this option quite prominently on the site. It doesn't make it the strongest possible source. The Instagram source is OK, but make sure that you only summarize the content that is explicitly stated in the source material. The same goes for the WSJ and the Bee Magazine.

I hope that this all helps. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, I'm Mbinebri. I noticed that you recently removed content from Doutzen Kroes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mbinebri (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Mbinebri,
 * I have been deleting information because I work at her modeling agency and we do not want that on her Wikipedia page. Thank you Miaeschlidt (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply! However, you are running afoul of Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest.  As an employee of her modeling agency, it's highly inappropriate for you to be removing information you seem to perceive as unflattering, especially given that the information is sourced.  If you insist on continuing this, I suggest you take your concerns to the article's talk page to try and reach a consensus on removing any content.  Another revert and you'll be violating rules regarding edit warring.  Thanks!  Mbinebri (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)