User talk:VertiasArchivist3: Difference between revisions

Hi VertiasArchivist3! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! would like to start by Deleting promotional content. Advice and guidance is very much welcome to help me through this journey. Again, Thank you very much! 🙂 VertiasArchivist3 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s great to see someone here to help build an encyclopædia.

Category:All articles with a promotional tone might be of interest to you if you haven’t found it yet, as well as the essays WP:IBA and WP:IPR (the latter says it’s still in development but it can still provide good advice). I’m assuming you’re aware of WP:PROMO and MOS:PEACOCK.

An essay that isn’t about promotional content but can often help in eliminating it and is often relevant to the same articles is WP:PROSELINE.

Looking at a few of your contributions, I’d say when removing some promotional content from a paragraph be careful not to accidentally remove sources which may also be supporting other claims as well as the one you removed. Conversely, if you think a source fails WP:RS or WP:IS and you remove it, be sure to remove all the claims it was supporting, not just the ones immediately preceding it. To summarise, after you remove promo, check over the article to see that it makes sense.

Just looking at [1] as an example, the reference you removed was the only thing supporting that paragraph. Also, the sentence In 2024, Netcraft combated online fraud doesn’t make much sense since that was presumably something they already did prior to 2024.

I hope that helps; happy editing! lp0 on fire () 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Not the right term to look for a neutral tone in wording their “innovative” approach in combatting online fraud. What would be the proper edit in this situation? or should the phrase just be removed outright? VertiasArchivist3 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn’t criticising the removal; you asked for guidance and I was doing my best to provide some. To be clear, you’re doing good work. Calling them “innovative” was unambiguously promotional and needed removing. In that situation, yes, I would probably just remove the whole sentence. Sometimes it’s better to reword it completely to convey the same meaning, but there I don’t think deleting it would do any harm. lp0 on fire () 17:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]