User talk:TaxAct2018

Alfred Marshall

Hello, my apologies if my reversion of your edit at Alfred Marshall was in error. The incorrect formatting made it appear like a destructive edit, though I think I may have acted too quickly. Are all investopedia links considered spam (I don't know the site). Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: I was editing an article where the investopedia link felt really out of place. I used Special:Linksearch to just look to see if it is a pattern. Here are things I've been deleting 1). References in the summary section 2) External links 3)References to cite the homepage 4)References that cite a page that isn't directly related. For example, there was a page about the World Bank in Honduras and the sentence talks about changes in poverty rate and the citation is for a page that explains what the World Bank is generally. Not really ready to call the domain spammy but I'm not shy about switching citation for a university resource, something more related, of Citation needed. How should I be formatting that? It wasn't clear on the help page. TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Investopedia? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TaxAct2018: That makes sense - the link seems irrelevant at least, in that World Bank case, if not inappropriate.

"Citation needed" should look like this: {{citation needed|date=February 2018}} (no ref tags). You might also consider using {{Better source|reason=|date=February 2018}}.

Also, entering even a very basic edit summary will probably help you avoid a lot more inquiries like this. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Ok I will use those better tags. Is there an institutional distinction between irrelevant and inappropriate? If so, where could I read more about it? TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TaxAct2018: Oh, I just meant that some sources might be considered never appropriate to use here (such as obvious spam), and some are not appropriate because they're not relevant to a particular statement/article. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: LayerOne

Hello TaxAct2018, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LayerOne, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#CORP, WP:CCSI#ORG). If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 16:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: South Gate High School

Hello TaxAct2018, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of South Gate High School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 clearly excludes schools. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 16:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jason Whitehorn

Hello TaxAct2018, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jason Whitehorn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: collaboration with multiple notable artists is a claim of significance. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 16:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wayne Dalglish

Hello TaxAct2018, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wayne Dalglish, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing a non-extra role in a notable movie/TV show indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#ACTOR). If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 16:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of WP:CSD. It can be confusing but not impossible to understand. Be sure you have twinkle working and turn on your CSD log. If in doubt, use AfD or MfD. Don't be offended if someone then CSD's the nominated page - that just confirms your suspicions. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, I'm SparklingPessimist. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bibeltemplet 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 the 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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SparklingPessimist: Thanks for keeping me honest. :) I removed the reference because there was already a perfectly good reference and press releases aren't really a great source so I removed it. Here's the guideline I'm using for press releases not being a good source Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Press_releases Does that make sense? I'm still new here. I'm going through and cleaning up references because I felt like it was something without much of a risk of screwing things up. TaxAct2018 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases

Hi there, I notice you've been removing press releases uses as sources. You're probably right that these are not great sources in the majority of cases. However, I'd ask you again to perhaps add the "better source needed" template in some cases, instead of just removing a not-so-great citation. I tend to think that some citation is better than no citation in most cases. Also, sometimes a press release is totally fine. Here, for example, the press release was being used to prove that HOC had been a topic covered by the Montel Williams Show. I didn't even bother looking at the press release, but I would bet it's pretty filled with fluff and certainly not an impartial source. However, it serves the purpose intended. I wouldn't use that press release as a citation for, like, any concrete statement about HOC's history, but using it to prove the connection with the Montel Williams Show seems completely fine to me.

Also, please do be careful with your edits. I'm not checking up on you - I only found your Hats Off for Cancer edit because you broke formatting in a way I routinely scan for (and the edit removed some other good content in the process too). No big deal, another editor will often catch errors quickly, but sometimes these things do slip under the radar and affect the readability of an article for a long time. The "preview" button is your friend. :) Best, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll make sure to preview first. I'll also put in better citation in places where objectivity isn't going to be important. Thanks! TaxAct2018 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, TaxAct2018, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Removing References

Hi TaxAct2018. Please be careful when editing articles. Your recent removal of references on some pages tripped some of our anti-vandalism alarms. If you are making significant changes to articles it's very important that you explain what you are doing and why. You don't need to write a book, but let people know your thinking behind the edit. Welcome to the project and happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Is there anything else I should be including in my edit comment? In some cases, I will be adding a better source tag instead of just removing the citation as long as being an independent source isn't as important. TaxAct2018 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure you include an edit summary with a brief explanation of what your doing and why. Also if there is any possibility your edit might be controversial I suggest discussing it on the article talk page first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: If I wasn't triggering anti-vandalism alarms, is it your experience that the type of edits I'm doing would be seen as controversial? TaxAct2018 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are removing cited references w/o an explanation it is likely going to at least draw some attention and closer scrutiny to what you are doing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Ok, now I am checking up on you a little... :) I noticed that in The Da Vinci Code WebQuests you're still using incorrect formatting on "citation needed" tags. I've fixed it, but please do this correctly in the future to save other people the time (and to make it show up correctly on "citation needed" lists, which will let people find it to fill in said missing citation).

Also, in that case, again, the press release seems like a totally appropriate source to me, as it's in the context of describing a promotional item itself. ThAe case could be made that that's actually the BEST source for that info. It was a dead link, though, so I let your "citation needed" remain. Jessicapierce (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Can you let me know what my mistake was? There were two brackets after the closing reference tag but I thought I did it correctly. I'm copying and pasting from a text file with the following tag: ^{[citation needed]}. Here's the diff before and after my edit

Your phrasing is correct, but "citation needed" doesn't go within ref tags (<ref>). Using the ref tags essentially tells the page to display "citation needed" as a footnote, rather than just in the article's text, as it should. Jessicapierce (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Ok so I remove the ref tag and just include citation needed. Ok thanks! TaxAct2018 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rasun. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellezzasolo: I apologize if this edit constitutes vandalism. My understanding was that links to social media profiles from a wikipedia page is no appropriate. These external links don't add to supporting the article and seem superfluous. Please disabuse me of any misunderstanding I might have there. TaxAct2018 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @TaxAct2018: My mistake, it looked bad, but the social media links are superflous. I've removed all broken links and clear social media links. I think the youtube link is probably relevant, as is the 3rd party site one. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past account

What past account did you use? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I was using User:justaZBguy to kind of learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I created that account for work purposes. This account is for my personal computer. Is that ok? TaxAct2018 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: TaxAct2018 was supposed to be a reference to the tax legislation that recently passed in the US. I can see the confusion though because there is software named TaxAct. I'm planning on changing it to TaxAbomination2018 to clear that up but when I went to create the account, my IP has been blocked. Yikes! TaxAct2018 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TaxAct2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. You can easily test this by using the IP address in your proxy settings. It would break your browser. TaxAct2018 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Without your IP - we have nothing to check, or unblock. If you would like to provide your IP more privately, you can use WP:UTRS. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

...and how would they know what IP you are talking about so they could run this test? You haven't revealed it so that anyone could evaluate your statement concerning the proxy usage. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you recently removed content from Telestrator 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm not sure why you deleted a source and replaced it with a CN tag. Please provide an explanation when making such edits. DonIago (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TaxAct2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20698 was submitted on Feb 21, 2018 19:21:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]