User talk:Risbek Hewitt

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Risbek Hewitt. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ten Lost Tribes, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Kyrgyzstan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, You changed my edit on Kyrgyzstan and asked me to cite my reference. I actually changed the content of the article to properly represent the quoted source. Please change your edit back to the way I had fixed it. Check the source. Thank you.
 * I did check the sources. Please see the edit summaries for each revert I made in the article: WP:SYNTH, not found in source, unsourced, etc. I don't simply revert without checking the existing sources. Find sources that actually back up your content changes and I'll be more than happy to let them stand. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, tOn the Kyrgyz article, footnote 18 points out that Arab "invaders" conquered but the text was reverted to say it was traders, not invaders... I'm not really sure how you see this. It seems really clear to me.
 * Quite right. Thanks for pulling me up on that. Yes, I've restored that information and tidied the section a little as the events were running one into the other even though they're not actually related. Note that I've left a request for citation tag next to the introduction of Islam through trade a century previous to the invasion. If a reference isn't found that would suggest that some conversion took place as the result of earlier trade, all references to 7th century trade should be removed. Give it a couple of weeks, then feel free to ping me about removing it. The BBC timeline is very basic, so it could well be that there are better reliable sources dealing with details surrounding the era. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)