User talk:Htmllife

Welcome!

Hello, Htmllife, 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 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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Introduction to referencing
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing

Wikipedia is generally built on secondary sources - what you added was a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY). To mention something like that we would definitely need a secondary source. That would be something like a book from a reputable publisher, an article in a major newspaper, or a peer-reviewed academic journal. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to require this with the existance of multiple alive links, directly in twitter, that prove the existance of such contents. Htmllife (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Htmllife. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

See, you didn't care to just check the link or the contents. You are so lost in bureaucracy that you ignore the basics.

This is going to make a great history about how history is "fabricated" in wikipedia. Htmllife (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how we use sources here - there are multiple sources that attribute the first use of hashtags to Messina. All we do is follow what they say. You can't come along with a primary source and use it to cast doubt on as secondary source - see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary. If you think that history is being fabricated, then the solution is to speak to tech journalists about why the history of the hashtag is inaccurate and if they agree they will write an article which we can cite. SmartSE (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First, thank you for answering me like a human and not like a rule book. It is a nice change.

You see, I can't understand why you need a journalist to prove that a date is accurate. You can check my edit, all I wanted is, without taking credit from messina, to show that there a tweets, alive in twitter, with a date that use hashtags earlier than that, and I have more than a dozen.

Would wikipedia need the opinion of a journalist to prove that 2+2 is 4? It seems like it is necessary to prove that april and/or july 2007 came before august 2007.

There is no conflict of interest with facts and true. Sooner is sooner. I really see a COI in not making this correction available to the people.

And it is so sad that I now have to spend time and resources to get a journalist to prove this. What I would also do is prove that wikipedia has ridiculous burocracy for some things and that facts are not a priority.

If I was able to hack twitter to change tweets date, I would certainly now how to avoid all this nonsense. This is all so absurd.

Anyway, thanks for being empathetic and taking the time.

Sorry if my english is flawed, I am spanish. Htmllife (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)