User talk:Grashazk

Welcome!

Hello, Grashazk, and

• 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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hello, Grashazk. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that you tend to use Norman Lebrecht's "Slipped Disc" blog as a reference in many of your edits. Whilst this comment may sound academic, it is not good practice to cite blogs as references, and any single blog at that. Anyone can write a blog and write anything that s/he wants on it, without a third party to filter and evaluate the content, i.e. there is no automatic fact-checking for objectivity and accuracy in blogs. Proper references are newspaper articles, or academic journal articles, for example, which have been vetted and passed by objective third parties before being posted on a given website. Thus it is best to cite a blog entry as an external link, not as a reference. The alternative is to go to the direct source that someone like Lebrecht cites and to make that original press release or on-line newspaper article the actual reference. If it is a press release from an organisation like the CBSO (in the case of someone like Andris Nelsons, for example - where, by the way, as of 26 December 2011, there has been no official report of the birth of their first child), then one cites the direct press release from that organisation, with credit given to them appropriately. Thanks for reading. DJRafe (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grashazk: I'm not sure how the response button works, so I'll reply in this space. Norman Lebrecht's "Slipped Disc" blog is one of the most widely read sites in classical music. It often carries reliable news and comment ahead of print media. Its report of the birth of Mr Nelson's child, for instance, was quickly corroborated by the persons involved on a variety of social media. However, I take your point and will use blog sources sparingly on Wikipedia in future, and only when another source can be found to verify them. Thank you for the comment.

For similar reasons, I removed some stuff you added to Joshua Bell on the grounds that a blog opinion piece is not a sufficient reference. The other reference didn't support the point you wanted to make.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.
• 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 Wikipedia: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

Hallo Grashazk,

thanks for your valuable addions to Latonia Moore. You might be right, that Bill Schuman is originally named William Schuman, but - accoding to peopel from the AVA I emailed with- he calls himself Bill. I think Latonia does call him Bill to, because she had no objection, when I quotet him as her teacher on her webpage. Also are there many references to a singing teacher as Bill Schuman:

• Latonia Moore in German version
• Marcello Giordani

William Schuman might be missleading, because there is an article about a William Schuman, but he died when Latonia was about 13 year.

I haven't change your entry yet, because I'm new to Wikipedia

Kind regards Nico Art-chocolate (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Grashazk. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grashazk. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grashazk. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]