Hello, KNLRJG, 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 me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi KNLRJG! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm EncMstr. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eugene, Oregon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully ask you to discontinue going around Wikipedia adding numerous, sometimes inappropriate links to the actor Demetri Goritsas. You appear to be a single-purpose account designed to promote this actor and use Wikipedia promotionally, and not to contribute to Wikipedia as whole. I suspect there's a conflict-of-interest issue involved as well. You need to disclose what relationship you have with the subject and to not contest other editors' removals of your edits where they are inappropriate. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your promotional edits for a minor actor are getting out of hand. You appear to be using Wikipedia in order to try to promote this actor. I would advise discontinuing this blatant practice. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotional activivies. If you continue, I will ask an admin to investigate, offer an opinion and suggest a suitable response.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KNLRJG. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Demetri Goritsas, 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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just seen this page (am still finding my way around) so thank you EncMstr for the sources, I've read the suggested articles, will look further for a reliable source as you have mentioned. I appreciate your polite response. As for link spamming, I had no idea what that means but I though actually having reliable sources both in and out of Wikipedia was the way to go? Am I wrong? Nothing I have written is untruthful and I have responded on other pages to this (KNLRJG (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Gtwfan52 (talk · contribs) wrote an excellent response below, one I completely agree with. Thanks for responding, as well as helping to improve Wikipedia. —EncMstr (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You are obviously new, and that is very ok. First off, let me say welcome. Secondly, may I suggest that you use the link above to the Teahouse and ask questions when you are not sure about something. It is quite ok, even encouraged, to be bold, and you cannot break Wikipedia. Anything you do wrong can be fixed.

Thirdly, let me try to explain notability. It is not in any way related to fame or importance. It is not a subjective opinion, but rather a nearly objective standard. Whether someone thinks an actor's body of work is important is not really important. What is important as far as notability goes is this: Are reliable, independent, secondary, sources talking about the subject in detail? (The term notability comes from the fact that we are looking for subjects that sources have "made note" of). As far as Demetri Goritsas goes, you have a bunch of blogs, Imdb,(neither reliable) a directory listing on the NY Times (not detail) and two reviews of plays he has been in (again not detail). Searching google news and google books, all I find is more of the same. If Variety would have written an article about his performance, that would have spoke to notability. Simply because they briefly mentioned he was good in a larger review of an entire play does not. Again, notability has nothing to do with how good a particular subject is at his craft. It is all about "are sources talking about him (in detail)."

Lastly, remember that most any of the terms you see thrown around here that seem technical and unique usages to Wikipedia are just that, and will have a definition somewhere. That is so we all know what we are dealing with. Fame is not our criteria for inclusion, because fame is subjective; notability is objective. Whether a source is reliable is subjective; a source that meets WP:RS is objective. Click a lot of links; ask a lot of questions! I know this being your first big experience here all this is probably discouraging. That happens. I always encourage new editors to just cruise around and make small edits to existing articles and ask a lot of questions before tackling a new article. I have been here nearly two years and have written less than 10 articles. There is plenty of small stuff to do to "get your feet wet" before doing something that you will be invested in like an article. And like an idiot, I forgot to sign this. Oops. Wikipedia can always be fixed! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]