User talk:Nashmanhk

January 2019

Hello, I'm Abelmoschus Esculentus. I noticed that you made a change to an article, PCCW, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to PCCW. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About reliable sources

Hello. Here are some information about reliable sources. For information on referencing citations in Wikipedia articles, see Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Inline citation, and Help:Referencing for beginners.

What are reliable sources?

Reliable sources are sources that provide factual and neutral information that you can rely on when writing your article. Independent, secondary professional-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources are considered as reliable sources. Several newspapers, magazines and other news organisations host blogs which may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

Examples:

If you have questions or want to discuss the reliability of a specific source, you may visit the reliable sources noticeboard.

What are non-reliable sources?

Non-reliable sources are sources that provides biased or questionable information. These should be generally avoided to use in your article. Sources that have poor reputation for checking the facts, lacking meaningful editorial oversight or have an apparent conflict of interest are considered non-reliable sources. Moreover, sources that are self-published or can be edited by the general public are not reliable. Because of this, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and you should never cite any Wikipedia articles.

Examples:

Why we need to provide reliable sources?

All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and will not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Citing non-reliable sources such as fan pages or self-published pages which may be biased violates our neutral point of view policy.
Unsourced or poorly sourced material may damage the reputation of living people or existing groups.
Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

How can I find reliable sources?

Google is your friend. Don't cite the search page, cite the address for specific results. Google Books, Google scholar, and Google News are especially useful, just make sure that the publisher is reputable.

We try to avoid a definitive list of what sources always are good because it can vary based on the situation. Still, the community is quite clear that some select sources are usually good and some sources are almost always bad.

Hope you have a more comprehensive and deeper understanding about reliable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse, Help Desk or on my talk page. Happy editing!

Regards,

―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nashmanhk. You have new messages at Abelmoschus Esculentus's talk page.
Message added 12:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christachrista. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Nashmanhk. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page PCCW, 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. We do not accept paid editing in wikipedia Matthew hk (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]