Hi ViperFace! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women Against Registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arnold. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest
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 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of userequire 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
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Walsh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual offense-related editing
Hi ViperFace,
I'm going to keep this short and impersonal, because I'm
assuming
you're trying to help and are open to suggestions, and because I don't want to get into a big dispute with you.
WP:NOBLE
efforts off Wikipedia.
Please tell me, with references to WP policies, if you think I'm out of bounds in any way. (I'm new here too, and have made my share of mistakes.) FourViolas (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm out of pounds. I have tried to maintain neutral point of view, but since I have mostly covered criticism and since the most academic research result on sex offender issues in U.S seem to be critical to current states of the laws, it is pretty hard to come up with balancing "positive things" to say that have not been included in the articles already. Of course I could find tons of popular media articles cheering for the registries, but this is not the case with academia which is more relevant IMO, and that is why I have tried to add more content about criticism/make existing criticism more coherent. I'll take a look of WP:s you presented. BTW I already answered on some of the issues you raised on sex offender article talk page.
extreme AGF will get everyone through this. I respect your noble desire to balance public prejudice with academic consensus (even if I think the situation is more complicated than that). As Herostratus suggested, keep your "criticism of US laws" sections short, factual, and punchy; put in a few impeccably sourced statements about academic opinion and leave it. Even if you maintain an activist position, a concise, true section on "Scientists and HRW think this needs to change" will have a better effect than the global insertion of tendentious language. You have to treat readers' preconceptions gently; when I first encountered your version of the Offender article, I actually thought it was the work of some embittered offender. (immediate disclaimer and clarification: I have no reason whatsoever to believe that you have any personal relation to sexual offenses besides that of a third-party human-rights activist.) I'm not telling you that to insult you or accuse you (again, I can believe that you're a disinterested Finn), just to bring to your attention that criticizing the harshness of offenders' treatment outside a section dedicated to that purpose does not necessarily advance your cause. Again, thanks for keeping calm and for sticking around to keep improving coverage of this topic. FourViolas (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Calm schmalm. I've gotten nothing but accusation after accusation from
user: Flyer22, who clearly had her mind made up before I did anything, and unlike everyone else, appears to be just digging her heals in making up still more unfalsifiable accusations. Sorry, but I have a real world case to finish preparing for. I had this crazy idea that the information I was gathering would be useful to wikipedia, which was/will continue to be missing almost everything scholars have to say about it. See 'ya.Noterie (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Like I told you at the Sex offender talk page, Noterie, I've caught various WP:Sockpuppets and recognize when editors are not new (or are not completely new) to editing Wikipedia (whether they are WP:Sockpuppets or not); many at this site know that, just like they know that I am well-versed in a variety of scholarly topics and commonly add scholarly text to articles. Wikipedia will never be complete; it's designed to repeatedly change.
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts
. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Oh no! You forgot to log in again! Flyer save us!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noterie (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tap your inner Zen.
Hi, Viper. No one knows better than I how frustrating this is. My experience, however, is that when push comes to shove, the editors writing calmly are much more convincing. I agree entirely with your very reasonable demand that people who are opposing the inclusion of essentially any RSs on the topic should produce any RS supporting the view they appear to hold. You might, however, consider rewording the more personal part of your comment " your kind MONGO (that is people who DO NOT open the articles and read it, but go and revert edits and claim misleading/pov-pushing for any arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. " — James Cantor (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushing
You need to gain a strong consensus for your edits or face a topic ban. You continue along the path you are now, which is to try and use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your agenda, and you are going to face a site ban.--MONGO 19:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you follow
WP:PRESERVE MONGO?? Help me out here. It seems like this is going to arbitrators, since we are not clearly going to find common ground. As more experienced editor I ask you to take this dispute to be resolved by arbitrators.ViperFace (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arkansas Time After Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russellville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advocates For Change until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Address. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sex offender article
Good job on your recent edits. The material appears to be easier to read and less redundant after your edits. Now, if you have the time, I invite you to make similar efforts at the "Overview" section of that same article, which is certainly not an overview, and appears to be a copy/paste job from another article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Etamni. I might try to improve the overview section at some point. I'm currently working on Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States and there's still much to do there. If you have any comments on that article, I'd like to hear them. Many articles related to these subjects are pretty messed up atm. This is a shame since the topic, particularly the broadness of the term "sex offender" and harshness of the US registries has been recently covered internationally following Zach Anderson case and these articles are read quite often, I assume. It's nice to see some new interested editors in these topics. ViperFace (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over the article more fully later. I did review another editor's deletion of some sources, and agree that there were too many in one spot. I made a minor copy edit on that paragraph, but will look at it further as I have time. Even though English is not your first language, you are doing quite well in making what you write understandable. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the above has been fixed. Under the "list of absurd..." your first link is about Lonny Leon Rivera; here is a more complete link for the same story: Courthouse News Service: He's Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says. (The source appears to be a news outlet with editorial oversight of what it publishes.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I added the link on the list. ViperFace (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the articles about Lonny Leon Rivera are all a couple of years old: do we have any idea what has happened since then? Was he successful in getting his name removed from the registry? Would the outcome of that case be relevant to the article? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]