Hello, Nbfa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for the kind welcome Doug. I have been told that I need to format the reference and links properly on the page but despite reading through the guidance I don't really understand how to do it. I would appreciate any advice that you could give me. (Nbfa (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not User:Doug, but I happened to see your help request. I've changed the formatting of the first reference and the first external link so that you can see how it can be done. This link will show you the changes I made. You can find an example of this at Help:Citations quick reference. See how you get on! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Nbfa) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. 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. Alexf^(talk) 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alexf, Thanks very much for your comments. I am new to this and was originally going to post on your talk page until I read on there you would prefer people continue the conversation on their own pages. I hope I am posting this in the right place.

After reading what you wrote I am now unsure how to proceed. I would be happy to change my username as I am the only person using the account. However, I am connected to the organisation. I had believed that the most important two criteria on here when assessing if an article could stand were firstly 'notability' and secondly being able to back up claims. I worked hard on both counts. Many people connected to the organisation also have Wikipedia pages, as do other organisations in our field.

When writing the article, I was conscious of the fact that I was connected so I tried to present a neutral view. For example, I didn't make any claims about the impact that the work of the charity has, and stuck to facts such as when the charity was founded, what services it offers etc.

Before writing this article I took guidance from a number of people who have created Wikipedia articles for their charities. The advice everyone gave that what matters was notability and neutrality, both of which I tried to achieve.

It would be a real shame to have to remove this article after the work that has been put into it, but if those are the rules of Wikipedia of course I respect them. If you confirm to me that is the case, are there any alternatives that you can suggest? Should I ask someone else on here to write it for example? By looking at other articles, I think that the organisation is notable enough for an entry.

Thanks for your help, (Nbfa (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This notice was not about the article or its notability but the username which is in violation of the rules. As stated in #2 above, if you want to keep the edit history, you can visit Wikipedia:Changing username, else just create a new account. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alexf, thanks for your quick response and thanks for the clarification, that's really good to hear. The reason I thought that your message was refering to more than the username was because of the bit which reads 'Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest' . I will change the username and make the reference changes which have already been suggested. (Nbfa (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ah but you are not exempted!. I said the issue here was not questioning the notability of the article's subject. That's a separate issue. The username problem also carries a conflict of interest. Please read the Business FAQ to understand. I appreciate your willingness to be neutral as the rules require but it is hard to be neutral when writing about your organization. That's why I don't write about my employer (yes they have an article). Be careful. Correcting obvious mistakes, grammar, and falsehoods is OK. Extending the article may not be in your case. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks. The reason I mentioned the notability was just because my prior research by talking to other contributors had suggested that the most important factor was the notability and that this factor overrode all others. I am going to read more about the rules, make some changes and have a good think. (Nbfa (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not so. many factors are equally important. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on it, as per Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 1#The National Benevolent Fund for the Aged (NBFA) even changed its title to match our conventions. I added a photo of a notable person who I think was involved. Hope did not do too much damage.

I took the liberty of nominating it for the Did You Know section. See Template talk:Did you know/National Benevolent Fund for the Aged to track. You might want to add your new user name to it, for example. The article still could be expanded of course. For example, the "research" needs to be cited, and the count of people, etc. Also the registry page only says England and Wales, while the text claims Scotland etc. so that needs to be cited or corrected.W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you.
 
Additionally, it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest, though you may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Galatidanube (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, sorry I am quite confused. I was told I needed to change my username, which I was more than happy to do. I submitted a username request and didn't log in for several days as advised. Now I have found that my account has been blocked. So for example I don't know how I can respond regarding my username request. How should I proceed? Nbfa (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you to let you respond to the request for clarification concerning your request for a change of username. I suggest responding as soon as you can to avoid being blocked again. However, you should also be aware that, no matter what username you use, you should generally avoid editing on topics in which you have a conflict of interest, and exercise considerable caution if you do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, W Nowicki, thank you for your kind help. Sorry to take a while to respond. JamesBWatson, thank you for unblocking me. As advised, from now on I will refrain from providing edits to the NBFA page, hopefully other Wikipedia users will make any changes that need to be made. I appreciate your help. (Nbfa (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

To clarify, you can still edit the NBFA page, although best would be under your new user name, and being extra careful to use neutral language. Especially never remove anything critical of the organization that has been properly sourced. Adding new information with verifiable sources that is not promotion can be fine. You can always as for feedback on the talk pages too. W Nowicki (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W Nowicki, thanks again for your kindness. I appreciate that there is a point to rules on Wikipedia and it must take a lot of effort to enforce them. Both before posting and in response to comments I have tried to understand the rules and will continue to learn. If I post anything I will be very careful. I very much hope that other Wikipedia users will be able to add approvements and amendments to the page. Now that it has been approved I will of course just use my new username from now on. I appreciate your help. (Galatidanube (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Casliber, that's really interesting to know. It's excellent to see other people running with the article, I think Wikipedia is very special in that way. I have a query which it would be great if someone could answer (no rush). When people are mentioned in a Wikipedia article and they have a page themselves, does it normally happen that gradually over time that they are linked to it? For example, one of the Trustees mentioned on the NBFA page has an article on Wikipedia, and the NBFA is mentioned on his page, but it is not a clickable link (because it was written a long time before the NBFA article was). Is it likely that the author of that page will change it, and if so, how would they know that the NBFA page was created? Just curious, if there is a Wikipedia page that explains this I would appreciate being directed to it. (Galatidanube (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Generally never assume someone else will do something. We are all just volunteers with lives. I consider linking up a new article part of the process (along with the DYK nomination, and fixing any issues that come up in the review, as did in this case). Articles with no links are called "orphans" and from time to time people will add one of those obnoxious complaint tags noting this instead of doing the work to link them in. Here is a good process: hit the "search" button without typing any text, which gets you to the search page. Type in the name of your article, and this should find all articles where the name is referenced in the body. It will also show several false alarms, articles that use the same words for other reasons. Go through and fix them to link in your new one. I did a couple for you, and also did the disambiguation page for the acronym at NBFA. The guideline would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). The other point I would add is that if you have a cited source that links two subjects, after adding it to one you can often add the same source to the other and link back the other direction, if it does not already. W Nowicki (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks W Nowicki, that's really helpful. I assure you that I never expected others to do things for me. I appreciate all the help I have received so far and marvel at the work that Wikipedia contributors do. It's the reason I use the site. It was more just that I don't want to edit too much, because of issues already discussed, and also because I am new on here (and not that technically gifted!). I will try out your tips when I have time and try to do a bit of work on it. Thanks for taking the trouble, again, to explain things to me. (Galatidanube (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have now linked a few of the Trustees and other officials. I was unsure whether references were needed in each case on the edited page itself or whether the link and the reference on the National Benevolent Fund for the Aged page was enough. I tried to provide references where I could anyway. Thanks again for your guidance. (Galatidanube (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It is best to add the citation after any information that can be verified by it, so yes, should be all places it is used. You can use a named ref to reduce duplication within the same article. Also avoid saying, as in Mary Soames, Baroness Soames with dated words like "currently". Just say what the source says, e.g. in 2011 she was... or "since 1974" or whatever. It might be "current" now, but ten years from now it might not be. Legally we need to be even more careful about living people since there are liability issues. W Nowicki (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear W Nowicki- thanks about the explanation concerning the dating. Completely understand about 'currently'. Have removed that word for a start and will bear your comments in mind. I will try to look into the references when I have more time but some of the edit pages for the articles are set up so differently that it isn't always clear to me.(195.206.164.157 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oh yes the various conventions for references are confusing. But at least my thinking is that adding a source in a slightly different format is better than not adding it, since it can always be reformatted later. I only started Wikipedia editing two years ago, and it looked to me like the {{cite web}} style was the more "modern" so I prefer that, but many older articles have older styles. I also work on both USA and European/global articles and generally try to use USA style dates in USA articles, etc. Also remember to log in with your new user name before editing to record who is doing what. The numeric signature above indicates a login that expired probably. W Nowicki (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining about the numeric signature attached to my last post. I saw it myself and tried going back into edit to work out why. I think that I must have logged into the wrong account. The problem I have with the references is not just that they are confusing but that in certain cases I really can't see where to input them. For example, if you look at the edit page for Winston Churchill (previous NBFA chairman) the reference list doesn't appear, just a code which says something like 'ref list'. I presume this means it is being imported from somewhere else, but am unsure how to get to the list! Oh well, am learning a lot! I appreciate your help as always(Galatidanube (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what you are asking. Citations go after the sentence (or paragraph) with the infomation in it that comes from that source. Also after any puctuation (the "full stop"). This is normal for academic writing; I did a Ph.D. dissertation so got used to it long ago. Here is the sentence in Winston Churchill (grandson):

He was also involved with the [[National Benevolent Fund for the Aged]], as trustee from 1974 and chair from 1995 to 2010.<ref>{{cite web |title= Winston Churchill |work= Newsletter |date= Summer 2010 |publisher= National Benevolent Fund for the Aged |url= http://www.nbfa.org.uk/newsletter/nbfa-news-summer-10.pdf |accessdate= 5 August 2011 }}</ref>

And then the {{reflist}} already at the end puts the source details there. I just did a cut-n-paste of the citation from the other article. You can always hit "show preview" to see what it looks like. W Nowicki (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- it wasn't the code in the body that I was confused about but the way it was set up below. However I now think I see what you mean. Will have another look at it when I have time. Thanks for using an example to show me- that helps. (195.206.164.157 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies, I don't know what happened there, I believed I was logged in. The previous post was from me (Galatidanube (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]