TaggzTowerz

Welcome!

Hello TaggzTowerz and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Dinner theater, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell, I understand what you are saying, but either something is valid or invalid. Much of the information on this page is written nearly identical to what i have written. This company is a local murder mystery company that I saw and is very good, has been around for a long time and is no less worthy to be included than many of the other items. I also find this company interesting because they are so different. If you would like me to put it up a different way then please give me a sample. Thanks.

Hello again. First a couple of minor points: don't forget to sign your talk page posts (Wikipedia:Signatures), and don't mark edits as minor unless they are very, very minor. Adding material is not considered minor (Help:Minor edit).

As for you addition to the article, you're right. There are a lot of entries like that, but that's not a valid reason to add more. I will delete them shortly, but regardless, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria, so adding another listing is inappropriate. The banner across the top of the page points out that the page has an advertising problem. We should be working to fix that, not make it worse. If you feel that it is an especially important or interesting example, you need to find secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) supporting that conclusion. A link to the theater companies website is not suitable for this purpose. Your entry is essentially free advertising for the Riddlesbrood Touring Theater Company, and since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, we need additional sources indicating that the company is significant. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, here is my primary thing here. The reason why i think this is important, is that the organization uses elements from the new thought movement that i found particularly interesting. I deleted that earlier because when you first deleted it I thought that was the reason. I have not seen before any theater company that actually makes their shows 'self help' in nature. If someone reads it and wants to learn more about it, why can they not click to the website? Is that not the easiest way to go? If you want me to go out and find some articles about them i probably can. I just feel that this is a different medium that deserves at least the same amount of mention as many of the others. How can i talk about them without talking about them? --TaggzTowerz (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources that talk about the theater company, that would be great! It really does sound interesting. Wikipedia isn't just about our opinions, though, it's about what is verifiable. Including the website as a source is fine, but not as the only source. There are many people who add things to Wikipedia as a form of PR and advertising. A lot of it slips by, unfortunately, and I have just removed much of it from the article. One way to keep it from making Wikipedia an unusable mess is to include non-primary sources. Using newspaper articles, academic journals, etc., is a way to work towards a neutral point of view. It's not a perfect system, but it works. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I will do some research and try to put together an informative and neutral bit of information. Honestly, I have been a user for several years but have never tried to make any edits before this. So maybe I will use this as an opportunity to learn more about constructing an article the right way and well. Once i put this together, would it be ok if i show you first and give me your advice on it?TaggzTowerz (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to help! My editing habits are a bit erratic, but if you post on my talk page I will respond quickly. You might also find Wikipedia:Teahouse helpful, they seem like nice folks over there. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell. I hope you get this since i am not quite sure how to edit your talk page without editing another persons conversation with you. But I had a quick question. I have found an article that was published by a newspaper about the theater. Probem is the newspaper requires a person to pay to see the whole article. I have the full article, but is there a way to upload it to verify my arguments? Just trying to figure out the best way to handle that so i can cite the facts. Thanks!TaggzTowerz (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. FYI, I believe there should be a tab at the top of talk pages that says 'new section'. That's the easiest way to start a new conversation on a talk page. It looks like you figured it out!

Having a source be behind a 'paywall', as their called, is not a disqualifier. Obviously it's nicer if its viewable to everyone, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. The sections you added looks like a good start, but it uses a lot of what are called peacock term and vague attribution ("some people") which are often labeled weasel words. I'll have a go at simplifying it so you can see what I mean. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I do have the article. in full. but its a PDF. is the a way to upload it so it truely verifiable. Also I will check out peacock words. thanks TaggzTowerz (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Upload it? Not really, not that I know of. It's important to be cautious about that, due to copyright concerns (WP:COPYVIO), which is one area that Wikipedia takes very seriously. In general, as long as it's established as being a reliable source, and an effort is made to show where it can be accessed, it's fine the way it is. It's similar with printed books: you are not expected to upload a whole book, just to give enough information so that a reader could track it down. If someone challenges the legitimacy of the source, well, we can cross that bridge if we come to it, but I doubt that will happen. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your help. I learned quite a bit on this and next time will be better for it. Thanks.TaggzTowerz (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of help! Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of micronations, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please see the article restrictions that are visible in very large letters when you tried to add your entry. No entries are allowed that 1) are not independently notable and 2) do not already have their own article. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of micronations. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)