User talk:WendyVanTIlburg

Welcome!

Hello, WendyVanTIlburg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hello, please do not remove others talk page comments. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Hello WendyVanTIlburg. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 following the 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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 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.

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. Beach drifter (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The updates I made were to in accordance with journalistic standards. The picture that was used is over 10 years old and not hte property of Wikipedia. The facts about the election results were not facts, but rather a local newspaper account - same results but the state board of elections is objective. The new information to bring the article up to date is from the Washington Post. I see no journalistic reason to continually revert this article back to being outdated. What are your factual reasons for continuing to change the page? You know my name. I don't know yours. I don't know your person POV. I don't know why you don't update the article as it is a living person. Please explain your reasoning to me and what evidence that you have that my additions/corrections are not factually accurate. I will certainly be open to seeing any evidence.
 * I have no POV here, I am only trying to keep the article in accordance with wikipedia standards, not with any notion of journalistic standards that you may have. That is all there is to it. I asked earlier that you be careful about removing templates and references. You again removed a template and replaced a good reference with a facebook link. Wikipedia does not recognize facebook as a valid source. I also asked that you try to incorporate your edits with the existing content instead of replacing it. If you want to put in a small part about the recent comments by the ME, that is fine, but several paragraphs is over-coverage of this event and a clear example of WP:WEIGHT needing to be applied. The article is bloated as it is. Finally, it appears that you work for this person. If that is truly the case, then you really, really should not be editing this article. I feel like I keep making the same points over and over. It would be really helpful if you read the links I have left here on and on my talk page. Beach drifter (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ilario Pantano. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Please pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines and the comments in the edit summaries and on the talk page for this article. Simply reverting back to your version was not appropriate until some more discussion and consensus was reached. Thank you. JoannaSerah (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.