Welcome!
Hello, Kendalandrew, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Kingston Rulez (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
A note about RT
Welcome to Wikipedia! Just wanted to let you know that RT is not considered a reliable source here. If you'd like to read more about that, and see some other sources that are not considered reliable, you can do so at WP:RSP. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Kendalandrew, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Kendalandrew! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Lubov Chernukhin has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Nomination of Aigul Nuryieva for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aigul Nuryieva until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: Lev Mikheev
Hello Kendalandrew I have added projects Biography, Russia, Politics, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
ANI discussion involving you
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Note
Please familiarise yourself with the following policies: Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:BLP, and Wikipedia:RS. Then WP:DUE may be a good read. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish novel investigation; Companies House and Charities Commission are not RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021 edits
Hello @Kendalandrew: it appears that you are block-adding lots of content into several articles, literally the same bodies of text. I would kindly ask you to stop making these edits immediately. I will reiterate what is mentioned in the above section and also recommend you take a look at WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place to add lists of political contributions and quotes. It's also not a place illustrate a complicated web involving multiple people on individual BLP pages. I would strongly suggest that you look for an article that deals with the controversy you are trying to further promote. Please please refrain from adding more content until you have reviewed these. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @PerpetuityGrat:, I have read the section and highlight the following: "Wikipedia is not censored" and that everything I put in was consolidated from and referenced to high quality sources such as the BBC, Guardian, Bureau of Investigative journalism, Charities Commission, Companies House, the Electoral Commission, the website of the Houses of Parliament, as such it was not original content and was fully cited to credible sources. It is also something that matters, indeed was the subject of a Parliamentary Enquiry the delay of release of the report almost triggered legal action. Many of the journalists I quoted are experts in this field.
If your argument is that: "You must not update pages that are owned by other contributors", then I set up the page for Lubov Chernukhin.
If your argument is that "what I have published is not important enough", then I ask why Robert Courts accepting cash from Lubov Chernukhin and property developers is not important but the (uncited) 'fact' he is "a member of St Martin's Church Parochial Church Council. He has been a member of the Churchill Centre for many years, and reviews books about Winston Churchill in the quarterly journal, Finest Hour. [and] ... is a blues guitarist and enjoys cycling, swimming, and hiking" is. which looks to me like a puff piece written by a supporter. Also, the fact that the BBC, Guardian, Bureau of Investigative Journalism think the matters I added are important may support the argument that it is.
If your argument is that "what I wrote was badly written", I highlight that many of the 'editors' just deleted paragraphs but failed to re-write the prior paragraph and as a result the article did not make sense. Surely the point of Wikipedia is that people edit things and make them better and keep them up-to-date is the point of Wikipedia. Just deleting blocks appears to be censorious rather than developmental.
If your argument is that I "do not listed to Editors" then I highlight that one of the editors stated that UK Companies House and the Charities Commission are not Reliable Sources. This is ridiculous and was unsupported, and other editors agreed. Which editors do I believe? Most importantly I amended the sections to try and address the (extremely badly defined) "issue". There is a broader question of "if an Editor deletes a section or paragraph without improving it and just cites a Wikipedia reference (which appears not relevant) without at least some guidance" what do you do?.
So the questions I have are:
1. Were the contributions I made on subjects of importance that were missing from the existing articles? 2. Was the quality of English and writing adequate? 3. Were the articles a consolidation of credible existing information from credible sources? BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Electoral Commission etc etc. 4. Were the contributions fully cited?
In addition: 5. If I remove the links to whom Lubov Chernukhin made contributions, would that make the article OK? If not, what would? 6. I thought Wikipedia did lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists). How should I include the list in an acceptable way in this instance? 7. Is it not relevant that Brandon Lewis (A minister for security) accepted donations from Chernukhin? If so, what should I have done better? 8. Is it not relevant that Robert Courts was admonished by Parliament for misuse of public funds and had to repay them, or was one of 8 constituencies receiving funds from property developers in advance of major changes to planning rules (he is a Transport Minister), but it is relevant that he plays blues guitar? If so, what should I have done better?
There are two ways to approach a mater that involves multiple people with Wikipedia profiles, first is to set up a new Article (as I tried with Chernukhin), and the second is to put the information relevant to the person in their profile and link back. Both of which I tried to do.
9. What should I do to make this better? Or is what you are saying "this matter is not important enough" or "this matter is too difficult". Should I set up a separate article such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections 10. How is the ultimate decision made? Is it the case that Wikipedia is indeed censored? Publishing that a Minister accepted £18k from the wife of a former Russian Minister (cited to the Electoral Commission records) is not appropriate, but publishing the church they attend (uncited) is. Is it the case that Wikipedia is just a vehicle for politicians proxies to relay dog-whistle statements they feel will make them more electable, but not allow facts published by credible sources on significant issues (such as who they accept money from, support of the illegal proroguing of parliament etc).
It would be good to get some constructive guidance.
Kind regards
Kendalandrew (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent original research and BLP violations on MP articles, unresponsive editor. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)