User talk:PublicistDiannaPrince

Welcome![edit]

Hello, PublicistDiannaPrince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Kurtis Blow did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm FireBlade708. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Coke La Rock, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! F B 708 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Hello. I saw your email. Citations are sources that supports the evidence. To do so you need to use the Cite tool on the toolbar which appears while editing. Citing evidence helps readers understand what you got the evidence from. Most users will revert edits that haves evidence but doesn't cite it. If you want to know more then feel free to take a look at this page. F B 708 20:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Hello PublicistDiannaPrince, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Kurtis Blow have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the terms of use[edit]

PublicistDiannaPrince, you are obviously a undisclosed paid editor editing in violation of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and the WMF Terms of Use. You must review those policies, disclose your paid and conflict of interest status, and agree to abide by those policies, or you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia. ST47 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally confused[edit]

Hello. I'm not being paid to add information to Wikipedia by a single person! I've never been paid. All I've ever done is research information to add. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is "Publicist" Dianna Prince, and you are obviously adding material in the style of a press release. ST47 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once more[edit]

I understand the mistakes I made earlier, by not putting the information in my own words, and failing to add quotations, to the information I added. I just want to go on record, again, as saying; I've never once been paid to add a single bit of information on Wikipedia. I'm a publicist, journalist and writer, yes. I've never once been paid to add information to anyone's Wikipedia. All of this is brand new to me, and I've made a serious effort to learn and follow all the many rules. I don't want to feel like I'm not wanted on Wikipedia, or that I'm breaking rules, knowingly. I here to learn and follow all the rules. It's very complicated to learn without making any mistakes. I hope my efforts, honestly and communication is valued, because I am trying my hardest to improve. I just wanted to repeat myself, I've never been paid to add information to Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would charge, anyhow, when its subject to removal with no question. I'm a huge fan of Hip Hop icons and all I've ever set out to do, was add factual information. Thank you for reading this, and your time. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you[edit]

Just because my title includes the word publicist, doesn't mean artists are paying me to add factual information. Technically I am a publicist, because I get information publicized in various ways. Still, that title doesn't prove I've been paid to add information! I being honest! I wouldn't feel comfortable charging people, when the information I add can easily be removed. I'm not trying to make anyone upset. I'm just saying, titles don't equal payment, in every single case. I feel like, because I'm not professional editor, I'm constantly under a microscope and being judged. I don't know if all editors knew every rule and exactly what to do, when they 1st began publishing here, but I'm learning and applying it. I don't feel comfortable being told I'm being paid for things I've been doing out of the kindness of my heart, and adding factual information, so it'll go down in history. I publish blogs, and no ones paying me, my articles get published in magazines, and no ones paying me. I've never once been paid to add information on here! There's honestly no way I can prove that, other than my word. I feel like I'm being personally attack here, and I don't understand why my word isn't good enough to be true. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is copied and pasted from [1], which I suppose explains why it's formatted to look like a press release. Your edits so far have clearly been promotional. You'll need to disclose your relationship with whatever company you're working with, and abide by policy by making your suggestions in the form of edit requests, if you hope to be unblocked. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not working for anyone[edit]

I'm sorry but I can't prove to you that I'm not working for any company! All I can do is ask that you believe my word. I'm passionate about making sure information goes in the history books, pertaining to Hip Hop icons. I've published blogs, I've had articles published, I've added information and learned so much along the way. Now, I feel like all I've learned won't matter. All I can keep saying is, of I've been paid, I'd happily fill out the information needed, but I've never once been paid to add a single bit of information on Wikipedia. The way I added things, I thought was being professional, and I went off of examples I've seen published by other editors. This hurts me, because I've never been paid, and I can't even prove it, and you don't believe me! All I've done was follow my favorite artists, research, cross reference, and add information because of my passion for the old school pioneers. I do not work for any company, and I've never once been paid to publish information on Wikipedia. I don't understand why anyone would risk, taking people's money, if the information can easily be removed, so quickly. I've never charged, and no intentions to charge. I'm asking from the bottom of my heart. I've tried so hard to learn, and I've made mistakes, then made a note to not repeat them. There are so many rules and I started by knowing nothing. Please, please remove the block. I'm unable to show you a company I work for, because I'm a housewife, and I don't work for anyone. Unfortunately, I can't prove this, I'm just asking for another chance. Please. I've tried so hard to learn and improve, and it's like it means nothing, that I at least made the effort. Please reconsider. Thank you for your time. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless[edit]

So, please tell me what you suggest I do ar this point? I'm not working for any company, I've never been paid to add information to Wikipedia. I'm sorry I can't prove this, and more sorry that you don't believe me. What options do I have, if any? I've tried to learn and apply it, but I'm being accused of working for a company, and that's simply untrue. Thank you for your time PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless[edit]

What are my options at this point? I'm unable to prove I do not work for a company, and have not been paid to add information. I'd really appreciate any suggestions on my options to fix this, please. Thank you PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary at this edit said "I recently interviewed him." Why would you interview someone if there was no gain for you? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what I've gained isn't in the form of monetary value. Donating to help someone, is of value.

Help if you can[edit]

My gain for the things I've been doing in Hip Hop is nothing more than helping Icons and pioneers get the recognition they feel they deserve. I've invested much time learning about Wikipedia, and I'm asking if I can't prove I'm not working for a company or been paid, then what exactly can I do to restore my Wikipedia? It would be awesome to eventually, one day, be hired to publish content, until that day arrives I must show what I'm capable of doing. Any suggestions on restoring my page would greatly be appreciated. Thank you for your time. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts[edit]

I pride myself on researching, learning and my education. In my opinion, there are so many rules to know about and follow. I think it's disheartening that I've spent so much time trying to learn, fixing errors and learning from my mistakes, and I no longer have the opportunity to prove I've learned, and to apply it. I'm not working for a company, and have never been paid by an artist to add information to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I can't prove it. I can only tell the truth, which obviously isn't sufficient. The reason why, not that it matters, I conduct interviews, write articles, create blogs and more for free, is because one day I hope to land a position with a company, or represent a celebrity artists. Best way to land those positions, is by showing what I'm able to do, successfully. That may not make sense to everyone. Just like I'm passionate about old school Hip Hop Icons getting the recognition they feel they deserve. I've donated my time, and I'll continue to donate it, when I'm able. Again, I know none of this will help, because obviously I'm not being given the opportunity to learn, make mistakes, and apply what I've learned, at this point. I understand rules, but I've invested so much time researching and trying to learn all the many rules. No one seems to want to help me fix this, so I've given up hope. Live and learn, to me means, to have the opportunity to apply what you've learned. I'm not going to admit to something that's completely untrue. If I was working for a company, as a publicist, I'd happily admit it and be proud. For the editors that took the time to explain things, thank you for your time. Not everyone does things they're passionate about, for pay, and donating your time to something, isn't uncommon. PublicistDiannaPrince (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]