User talk:ToBeFree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 28 April 2018 (→‎Grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please click here to add a new message!
To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.

Rollback granted

Hi ToBeFree. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, ToBeFree, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.


Live 8 Philadelphia

Hi, It's Franklin Simon here from Franklin Simon Productions www.FranklinSimon.com. You made a change on the Live 8 article that we edited for Philadelphia because you said it was not constructive. I had edited because our web link to Franklin Simon Productions was not included. Also the word "reinforcement" was spelled in correctly. I have again fixed these errors and added the proper web link for Franklin Simon Productions for the purpose of constructive and complete fair content and coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.184.58 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't guarantee that it is considered to be relevant to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Notability), but you could try creating a well-written article about your company at Franklin Simon Productions and setting an internal link to that. To encourage this, I have now added an internal link to this yet non-existing page. Maybe that's a solution everyone can be happy about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Lift Jack

Hi-Lift is a registered trademark owned by the Hi-Lift Jack Company. How do we appropriately add a reference to show ownership of "Hi-Lift" to Hi-Lift Jack Company, Bloomfield, Indiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowdensl (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks - This page in a nutshell: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology of Golem Edit review

[Note: I have removed the "ref" HTML tags from the following comment because they made the links appear at the bottom of the whole page. The links appear at the correct position now.] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goylem is a denotation of the following information as per multiple sources as I include after the following request to have the following information ratified into the description of Goylem within the etymology of Golem: denote a large hulking or an unintelligent non-jew whom is despised. The meanings and etymology of the words goy and golem are as such a connections of the words "goy" which is a charged word denoting a distasteful or even hated non-Jew for the reason of not being a Jew and a Golem a hulking and magick possessed pile of clay worked into the human image.

Evidence with sources: 

        (1) Golem: "(GO-lem) also: Goylem. Zombie graceless oaf; subnormal person. A "living" creature with no soul…http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Yiddish_Words/yiddish_words.html#G
        And here the definition of Goy: "(goy) n. A non Jew; outsider…http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Yiddish_Words/yiddish_words.html#G

        (2) Golem: "Golem Clumsy; sluggish" http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm
        Goy: "Goy, der Any person who is not Jewish (Hebrew)"http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm
        
        Further context goyish kop denoting the relationship between the combination of goy and another word within the
        Hebrew grammar; a "Goyshe kop" Goy's (non-Jew's) kop (mind or head). "Goyshe kop: Opposite of Yiddishe kop.
        Generally used to indicate someone who is not particularly smart or shrewd: gullible, slow one 
        (definitely offensive.)http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm
        Goyim: "di non-Jewish persons (Hebrew)"http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm
        Goyish(e):  "Pertaining to goyim (Hebrew)"http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm
        kop: "Kop, der Head"http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/yiddish/yiddish.htm

        (3) Connotations for the hostile and derogatory nature of the word "goy":
        "GOY: A derogatory term meaning gentile, goyim is the plural, and goyisher is the adjective. "http://www.sbjf.org/sbjco/schmaltz/yiddish_phrases.htm

Please respond with cited works as to why the evidence I've provided is wrong if you disagree, thank you. 2604:2000:7200:F00:B98F:48D3:849F:34AE (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)anon[reply]

Hi, it might have been the "magick" in your edit that made me remove it. Of course, it has been added in good faith and I should just have removed the typo. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, well then thank you good sir. anon2604:2000:7200:F00:E8FF:E947:4673:C2F (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golem&type=revision&diff=829241205&oldid=829147558&diffmode=source 13:19, 7 March 2018‎ ToBeFree (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,494 bytes) (-322)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 2604:2000:7200:F00:B98F:48D3:849F:34AE: I disagree, after intensive review. This edit is indeed adding text to a quote that does not exist in the cited article. This modification of a quote is not acceptable.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your edit and the written text is not lost! You can restore it by copying it from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golem&type=revision&diff=829241205&oldid=829147558&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


(Context: 2018-03-07)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golem&action=history

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seven deadly sins (and 1 Corinthians 13:13)

Hi. I made an edit to the "seven deadly sins" article and removed the 1 Corinthians 13:13 part. Yes, thanks to your link, i can read that the King James version contains the word "charity" instead of "love" BUT... I AM GREEK (!!!) and in the original Greek (and on all manuscripts) is "love". Funny thing is that just yestarday i watched half a dozen YouTube videos claiming that the King James version is (and should remain) the undisputed English standard (something i had no reason against -especially since i read the Bible in Greek, so it does not effect me- until... today!). Amyway, thanks for your message. P.S. sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:E904:A400:85AB:8D87:5DFD:B87F (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at C* shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I revert more than three times? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually seem to have to! I had the Stratosphere history on my screen. Thank you for your warning. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man nice work.

You did a pretty good job, dude. I thought that wikipedia just had bots but then you're all like: "Weird crypto currency" and I was like "Wow... this guy's pretty good at his job" Wikipedia really has their sh*t together. Have a nice day, buddy, love ya! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Doocas (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that came unexpected, especially after the big red warning about the edit conflict. :D Have a nice day, too, and if you decide to, good luck with the new article about the cryptocurrency. I never heard of it, but who knows, maybe it's actually worth a page on Wikipedia! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zina

Section Zina#Homosexuality_and_zina Look, I have a braintumor in my brainstem and cerebellum. I don't have the energy nor the time to edit (learn to) on Wikipedia. I mention this to explain why I don't take the time learning how to properly edit on Wikipedia. It's not because I'm lazy. Someone please take the time to check if what I am saying is true, take acceptable sources and make the proper edits to the article. I don’t want incorrect information about this verse on Wikipedia. Both Muslim extremists (who want justification in the Quran to harm homosexuals) and haters of Muslims want this verse to be referring to homosexuality when it is not. There is no (worldly) punishment for homosexuality or call to harm homosexuals in the Quran.

On the talk page of Zina I explained the reasons why I made my edits. I gave sources on the talk page and asked for help before I made any edits. When nobody replied, I just went ahead and made the edits. My changes were reverted asking for sources and saying that it was original research (it is not).

When someone put this translation of Surah 4, ayat 16 on Wikipedia

"If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."| Qur'an, Sura 4 (Al-Nisa), ayat 16

did anyone check the source? I did. When you go to the link there are 3 different translations. Out of these, 2 translate Waallathani as "the two who" and only one (Yusuf Ali) with "two men". So even according to its own source (the majority of 3) it should be gender neutral "the two". The vast majority of other sources (10 out of 12 translations I know about, I give links at the end of this message) also translate it with “the two”, “both” or “twain”. It should not have been accepted on Wikipedia in the first place.

Also, chapter/surah An-Nisa (Arabic for women) deals with issues related to women such as marriage, divorce, dowry, inheritance of daughters and so on. Maybe this is original research according to Wikipedia but is it really wrong to mention that an ayat about an act between two men would be misplaced in this chapter about women? Simple logic. Do I really need a source to be able to say that? It just is the truth. It should be at least mentioned that the surah is called “Women” and is about issues related to women.

The third reason is that in ayat 16 the word yatiyaniha means “commit it” or “guilty thereof”. Something (bad) is done but there is no concrete meaning of what is done. It refers to something that is said before. Either you look at the previous ayat 15 to look for what is referred to by it/thereof and accept that what is referred to involves women who are explicitly mentioned in ayat 15, or you don’t look at the previous ayat and don’t know what ayat 16 is about.

The word yateeyaniha (commit it) used in ayat 16 is simply not the same as the words yateena alfahishata (commit indecency) in ayat 15. How can I possibly explain this? The exact literal translation would have been “commit it” but many translators have replaced “it” with “indecency” or ‘lewdness’ to make (somewhat) clear what ayat 16 was talking about. Even the source used by the person that inserted “if two men” into the article, has one (of 3) translation that says “guilty thereof”. Of other sources about half say “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act . It should be at least mentioned that “commit it”, “guilty thereof” are valid translations (and thus force the reader to look at the previous ayat 15 which is about women).

Translators using “two who” , “twain” or “both” and “commit it”, “guilty thereof” or just “two who are guilty” without referring to a concrete act are: Ahmad Raza Khan, Asad, Daryabadi, Maududi, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Pickthall, Qarai, Qaribullah & Darwish, Sahih International and Ali Unal.

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/4:16 (multiple translators) https://quran.com/4/16 http://www.alquranenglish.com/quran-surah-an-nisa-16-qs-4-16-in-arabic-and-english-translation (multiple translators) http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran?Sura=4&FromVerse=15&ToVerse=16 82.75.118.49 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 82.75.118.49, thank you for taking the time to explain your edits. To me, your edits appeared to be adding original research to the article. They also seemed to remove valid referenced information from the article. Furthermore, you added questions to the article, making it appear like a speech or an essay: "Maybe he made a mistake in the first edition of his translation and corrected it in later translations?" — "Don't you think it would be strange to describe male homosexuality under the chapter 'women'?" — "Firstly," "Secondly," … — "To be able to understand what is meant by 'commit it', you need to look back" etc. etc. etc. — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Also, this page might be a good reading: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
I will copy this discussion to the articles talk page, so that other editors can fix the problems you've pointed out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Please be careful of speedy deletion nominations that are too speedy. You tagged Brad McCarthy within 1 minute of its creation. In general, a good rule of thumb is to allow a new article at least 15 minutes, to see if the author has more to add, before tagging for speedy deletion. Moving more quickly than that can seem very bitey. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much - does this also apply to obvious autobiographies? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as I understand, because, while autobiographies are discouraged, they are not disallowed outright. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Samantha_Akkineni#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_19_March_2018

Options presented in WP:EPH

G'day,

I'm unsure what your comment "no Disagree: I strongly disapprove of this request. See IP talk page." refers to as the only entries on the talk page are warnings. You're aware that edit requests are for making edits and not to get additional privliges right? If they don't have actual changes presented, you can deny it there requesting they provide the changes they wish to make in an x = y format. I'd recommend using WP:EPH to assist with handling edit requests. Cheers — IVORK Discuss 21:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IVORK: Hey :) I just wanted to make sure that nobody actually unprotects the article for someone whose only contributions have been disruptive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No dramas, but like I said, per WP:Edit request the purpose of an edit request is for something like Change the word "teh" to "the" in the forth paragraph not a request for unprotection / access to edit. Again, if you install WP:EPH you will get to see all the options in a menu, which makes understanding and dealing with them much easier per the image — IVORK Discuss 22:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the IP and me probably misinterpreted this kind of request to be an unprotection request for the page. I didn't know about the x=y way of suggesting an edit to a protected page; all I saw was someone asking for something they should better not get. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you replied faster than I could add that paragraph. I'll have a look at EPH; it seems to be a nice way to help new users who care about improving an article but can't do so because the page is locked. I didn't hear about it before. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Hello sir, saw ur msg on my talk page. Can you please point out what information I added/subtracted without giving citation, you didn't give me the article name? Thank you (Regent007 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Regent007: Oh, hi! Sorry, I should have pointed out what article I was talking about. You're contributing a lot of useful information to Wikipedia! My message was about the article "Sohail Aman", a Pakistani officer who retired recently - and that information was indeed correct, so thank you again for adding it. Sadly, there had not been any reliable citations about his retirement, and four different users updated the article at the same time, all without adding references. So I added the "Citation needed" tag to the retirement date without actually removing it, and someone with the IP 39.48.215.157 later added a link to this article at Pakistan Observer: [1] This seems to be a good, reliable source.
So the problem has been solved; here's a short timeline of the events:
The problem here was that unsourced information had been added to a biography of a living person. All users who had been editing the article in that time period have received a little message on their talk page, just like yours. This was not specifically directed against you; I just thought it can't hurt to add it to your page too.
We need to be careful that nobody adds incorrect, maybe libellous or defamatory information to this kind of articles. For this reason, statements that are not backed up by reliable sources normally get deleted as quickly as possible. In this case, I decided not to delete the information because it seemed to be reasonable, didn't appear to be vandalism and has been added and improved by many users at the same time. So I assume that you all have read/heard about this in the local news. Next time, I suggest to simply add a link to your news source, so that everybody can verify the information. You can use "ref"erence tags for this:
Lorem Ipsum, famous singer, has released a new album.<ref>http://example.com/good-news-article</ref>
Hope that helps - have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

what you meant here.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Talk:Alex Kelly (rapist)#Blanking by User:Jr2019 I'll add a more detailled explanation there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw two edits where they put someone else's name in the article. The article seems adequately sourced. I'd just as soon delete it all-- not a crime blotter.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I requested an explanation on their talk, 'cause you never know.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's nice. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I try to look beyond the "disruption" keeping BLP's guidance in mind.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Tea forte

Hi, not sure if this is where we leave a message, not very user friendly. I want to update the logo of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Fort%C3%A9". The logo is very old and obsolete. Here you can see our logo:https://www.teaforte.com/. We have different ones for different purposes. I also would like to update the content because it is quite weak. Regards (David Ferreira) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidafranklin (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. :) Thank you for helping us to improve the article; here is how you can do so:
  • Got a new logo? Upload it using the help at Commons:Upload, on Wikimedia Commons Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard
  • Replace the old logo link in the Wikipedia article by the new file name, done
  • For updating the "weak" content, this is nice, but please disclose your affiliation with the company. You are required to read and understand the following information before further improving the article: Wikipedia:DISCLOSE
Hope this helps. Have a nice day, and feel free to ask if there are any questions left. You left the message at the right place; I'll improve my talk page using a large "New message" button soon! Sorry for the confusion! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, quick correction: Wikimedia Commons is normally the right place for uploading images, but I forgot that it is not for copyrighted logos; your upload should instead go to this page: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing abilities

Because of recent cases of you vandalizing Honk, The Moose. It has been brought to my attention that I will have to ban you from editing on this software. I am sorry and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki editor ak koppP (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki editor ak koppP. Thank you for your interesting message. However, you have now been indefinitely blocked from editing by Widr because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to page changed back immediately

Hello, I just had a large portion of my page deleted and need it changed back. I got a message saying something about the term "garbage dump communities" being derogatory- we're a nonprofit that works in communities located in garbage dumps. I need this fixed immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keen7777 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keen7777: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You are likely not complaining about my personal edits, as I reverted my only edit to the page pretty quickly. However, other people have mentioned problems and reverted the edits you made after my message. Please talk to them about the problem; talk about your requested edits on the article's talk page, and please stop editing the article because you have a conflict of interest with the topic. I'll add an information message to your talk page and - for the record and your convenience - to my talk page, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

@Keen7777: Copied from your talk page for your convenience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Keen7777. 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 COI 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 COI 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 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. You said on my talk page that: "Hello, I just had a large portion of my page deleted and need it changed back. I got a message saying something about the term "garbage dump communities" being derogatory- we're a nonprofit that works in communities located in garbage dumps. I need this fixed immediately" (emphasis mine). This seems to imply that you are working for the subject of the article. It might even imply a shared account. Please be careful here; I didn't even think of this possibility, but your reaction suddenly unveiled these problems. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please read the links in this warning carefully. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Further explanation by another user; for the record / for my talk page archive

Hello, Keen7777, 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 International Samaritan have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to 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. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

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.  John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are built by paraphrasing what reliable sources have said about a subject. It is unfortunate that no-one has noticed this before now, but the fact remains, the article in question here is totally unacceptable as an encyclopedia article as it stands. Please do not replace the unsourced content again. And also, you need to deal with the issues raised int the previous section. Are you in the employ of or otherwise associated with this organization? John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm an unpaid volunteer for the organization. Why would the page not be considered legitimate? I've looked at dozens of others of similarly sized nonprofits that have wikipedia pages. Our page has been up for years. What exactly is the problem that you felt the need to suddenly delete half of it?

It isn't "a page". It doesn't belong to the organization. It is, or should be, an encyclopedia article. You have a conflict of interest here. I would strongly suggest you follow the best practices outlined for COI editors above. The main problem is that it completely fails WP:V. The secondary problem is that you are acting like somehow this page belongs to or is for the organization. It isn't. There is no indication the article meets our standard for inclusion found at WP:ORG, and as it stands, without reliable secondary sources, it is nothing more than an advertisement for the organization. Therefore it also fails another pillar policy, WP:NOT. We are not social media, nor are we a webhost. If you want to disseminate information about your organization, get a website. An encyclopedia is to record and summarize what others have written about your organization. John from Idegon (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Quoted for talk page archive ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page has actually been speedy-deleted

18:38, 29 March 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page International Samaritan (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no independent sources, no evidence of notability)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Lynch

Hi, I've added the source on the Becky Lynch thing, I hope it is ok, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.129.51 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@151.60.129.51: Hi, thank you very much. -- note that it might still be deleted one day by someone else if it is not considered to be relevant enough, and maybe if someone decides that the third party low-quality YouTube video has copyright issues and might not be a reliable source. I personally will not revert your edit anymore; to me, it is okay. If the information is later removed by another editor, please have a look at the edit history of the article and add a message on the talk page of the editor who undid your contribution. At the moment, everything seems to be all right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi please stop doing that

ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSpookz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(User is referring to reversion of vandalism) No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

Just wanted to send a quick thank you for reverting the IP's personal attack on List of Scooby-Doo characters! Much appreciated and not sure why they got so worked up over nothing lol. :) Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KatnissEverdeen: You're welcome! I had also asked for revision deletion of the edit summary in the IRC channel, but nothing happened. I guess this is not considered to be "bad" enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'm not really offended by their comment at all so it's no biggie. They're welcome to think I'm a cunt if that's what makes them happy lol. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Rayburn, Greg Rayburn Birthdate

Hello, I got your response/comment to my post on Greg Rayburn's page. I don't know how best to provide a "reliable source" as it was actually and factually me (the veteran) who had dinner and drinks with Greg. He was spectacular, funny and I had a great time. The topic of his wikipedia page came up and he mentioned he didn't know how to fix things such as his birthday being wrong or how things got added. I told him the quickest way was to make a post and find out who the moderators were.

That said, my post was/is factual but there are some edit's he would like to have made.

Are you the best source for those changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane0221 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, In reference to Mr. Greg Rayburn, his birth date is incorrect. His correct Birthday is August 16, 1958 Not 1959. He has requested that be changed. I'm rather new to Wikipedia (clearly) but I do live my life in front of the screen so I offered to assist.

-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane0221 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, In reference to Mr. Greg Rayburn, his birth date is incorrect. His correct Birthday is August 16, 1958 Not 1959. He has requested that be changed. I'm rather new to Wikipedia (clearly) but I do live my life in front of the screen so I offered to assist.

-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane0221 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane0221: Hey, nice to meet you. :)
Please don't get me wrong – your contributions are welcome, and we want you to enjoy improving Wikipedia. When reverting additions by new users, we need to take care not to discourage them from editing just because they didn't exactly adhere to the policies.
One of our main principles is the "Neutral Point Of View" (NPOV). Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but that can sometimes lead to problems. To maintain a reliable encyclopedia, we need to make sure that especially biographies of living persons adhere to very strict verifiability and neutrality rules. These are described on the following help page:
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("WP:BLP")
I will try to explain the issues with writing the following sentence, which you had added to the article: "Mr. Rayburn is a well spoken, humorous conversationalist who enjoys a social bourbon with veterans of the military and anyone with an honest sense of humor."
  • "well spoken": subjective; your opinion. Many other people including me might have the same opinion! But that's not relevant to Wikipedia. :)
  • "humorous": subjective; your opinion. There's also a nice help article about Original Research.
  • "conversationalist": not really neutral either
  • "enjoys [something]": Some generally interesting information (maybe not exactly his friendly conversation behavior, but notable hobbies) can indeed be added to an article... if you quote Reliable sources to neutrally prove them.
  • "veterans of the military": Unspecific (which military?), not really an encyclopedically relevant detail. Quick explanation: WP:DETAIL
  • "anyone with an honest sense of humor": subjective; your opinion.
There was basically no way for me to fix this sentence instead of deleting it.
About the birth date, especially when it is unclear or disputed: Always add a link to a reliable source when changing or adding information. You can easily do so by using the following syntax:
<ref>https://www.example.com/reliable-article.html</ref>
Hope that helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Have an awesome Thursday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonovlaw: Hey, you're welcome! Nice to have met you. Feel free to ask on my page whenever anything about Wikipedia is unclear or there are questions left. I wish you a wonderful day too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Liv Garfield

Referring to the following edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liv_Garfield&diff=834410419&oldid=833276909&diffmode=source ---- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes to show how a living person can use Wikipedia to advertise him/herself. You said my comment was not sourced. Sure, but almost the whole article about Liv Garfield is unsourced. It can be seen only as a puff piece, probably written by the person herself or her associates. If you wished to make similar edits to the whole article I would be most grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.156.190 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I honestly appreciate your intention! Just please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Instead, please be bold and remove anything from the article that is not reliably sourced and seems to be promotional. Make sure to explain each removal in the edit summary, so that this is not mistaken to be "vandalism". It's late here, I might have a closer look tomorrow. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up ~ ToBeFree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrtj (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Un

Sorry did not realise that we could leave messages This was because the allegation was not justified by anyone and as if the poem and the story are fictional - as we will see in the future the truth, I thought for a moment it is not a good gesture for the person to mark the scandal as if it was the truth. You know with the suicides in Korea and all that.. I was just being sensible, I suppose. Thanks anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.239.81.94 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :)
This seems to be about this edit. I think I can understand why you removed the whole "Controversy" section. This topic is hard to neutrally deal with. I have now read the three articles that are used to prove the Wikipedia section. One of them rather seems to be a commentary to me, but the other two appear to be reliable enough. The Wikipedia section should probably be written in a more neutral way, absolutely only stating proven facts. It should make clear why the accusation is "indirect". It should not use words like "many". It should make a clear explanation where the association to the metoo campaign comes from, because that seems to be relatively far-fetched to me.
Please help us to improve the section instead of deleting it. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ko_Un&diff=835098849&oldid=835093059&diffmode=source ---- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, ToBeFree! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@West.andrew.g: This made my day, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5G

Hi, Yes, I am a researcher on 5G communications. The claim of radiation on the article that I removed was of baseless, without any solid academic reference found in existing literature. The concern raised in that section was linked with a "google drive" account. Anyway, I would advise to produce any academic reference on the radiation concern in reputed journal or other academic sources if the removed portion is reverted rather than placing a mere personal google drive link. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srobidx (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Copied from User_talk:Srobidx for convenience and my talk page archive ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have not undone any edit by this editor, just visited the talk page because the deletion of an entire section at least made me raise an eyebrow.

Re:

Do you have any affiliations with the entities that you are discussing in your edits? Your edits and passionate defence of them have prompted concern from me. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You dodged the question entirely. I am growing suspicious that you have a conflict of interest somewhere down the line, given your insistence and passion over the subject in relation to the Olympics. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5G: Please disclose any affiliations now, or explicitly deny being affiliated.

Hi, now that you have also removed an entire "criticism" section from the 5G article, please explicitly answer the following question: Are you, in any way, affiliated with this topic? If yes, how/why? Do you work in this field? We appreciate your contributions, but please explain your relation to this subject. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5G
Hi, Yes, I am a researcher on 5G communications. The claim of radiation on the article that I removed was of baseless, without any solid academic reference found in existing literature. The concern raised in that section was linked with a "google drive" account. Anyway, I would advise to produce any academic reference on the radiation concern in reputed journal or other academic sources if the removed portion is reverted rather than placing a mere personal google drive link. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srobidx (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
copied from ToBeFree's talk page for convenience :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Srobidx All right. Your edits are not wrong, you really improved the article. Thank you very much for your time and work. We just wanted to make sure that you are not, for example, being paid for your edits by a company in this area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ViperSnake151 see above :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Lapin: Controversy

Timeline

  • 2018-04-05, 20:43 UTC: 72.89.96.246 (talk) removes entire "Controversy" section from the article "Nicole Lapin". Edit summary: "This is a minor edit" (Tag: section blanking)
  • 2018-04-05, 20:52 UTC: ToBeFree randomly stumbles upon and undoes the removal. Edit summary: This was certainly not a "minor edit"; trying to hide it this way makes it suspicious. :) (Tag: Undo)
  • 2018-04-05, 21:07 UTC: Friendly message by Aharonovlaw (talk · contribs), see below
  • 2018-04-05, 21:12 UTC: ToBeFree undoes his own edit. Edit summary: Reverted to revision 834455710 by 72.89.96.246: Restore IP version. While trying to hide it as "minor edit", the edit might actually be an improvement to the article. If someone else with more experience on this specific topic would like to keep the deleted part, they can revert my edit, justifying the addition themselves. (TW) (Tag: Undo)
  • 2018-04-05, 21:37 UTC: ToBeFree responds to Eyal Aharonov, see below.
  • 2018-04-05, 21:46 UTC: ToBeFree copies the messages from his own talk page to the article talk page, for convenience and information of other editors.
  • 2018-04-07, 14:42 UTC: 209.201.10.130 (talk) responds on Talk:Nicole Lapin. [diff]
  • 2018-04-07, 18:23 UTC: Blackbelt whitetails (talk · contribs) responds on Talk:Nicole Lapin. [diff]
  • 2018-04-07, 18:57 UTC: Blackbelt whitetails (talk · contribs) adds a comment to ToBeFree's talk page, see below.
  • 2018-04-07, 19:06 UTC: ToBeFree responds to Blackbelt whitetails, see below.
  • 2018-04-08, 00:30 UTC: Aharonovlaw (talk · contribs) sees the re-addition of the material and, without taking any other action, calmly and friendly asks what to do here. I am positively impressed; not everyone reacts that calmly.
  • 2018-04-08, 00:37 UTC: ToBeFree asks for "10-30 minutes" to write an answer.
  • 2018-04-08, 01:35 UTC: ToBeFree finishes answer. Hey, at least under 60 minutes! See below.
  • This timeline is incomplete, you can help by expanding it.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear To. Be. Frei:

I hope this finds you well. Our client, Nicole Lapin, consulted with us about her wikipedia page and content that has been published about her.

Controversy Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence. Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating, "I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era."[58] [59][60]

The header seems to unfairly convey information that remains an allegation. Additionally, the content uses scathing vocabulary to describe the allegation in the most negative light.

While we respect that wikipedia publishes wish to include such information as pertinent to Ms. Lapin's biography, we kindly request that the header of "Controversy" be changed.

We respectfully suggest that the header and the content be revised to reflect a more objective account of the stipulated details.

Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Eyal Aharonov, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonovlaw: Dear Eyal Aharonov:
Sorry for the confusion, and welcome to Wikipedia.
Your edit summary, "this is a minor edit", made the not-minor edit suspicious to me. You seemed to have been trying to hide this edit from scrutiny. Without stating a reason in the edit summary, you had deleted an entire section of the article. For this reason, I had undone the edit without throughly verifying if the removed information (which was referenced by two media sources, one of which being the NY Times!) was factually correct.
Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, and we really do our best to keep such articles accurate and clear. Of course, nobody here wants libellous allegations to stay. We remove them whenever we notice them, and we carefully deal with reports about such problems. Thank you for helping us to identify such material.
Because your explanation on my talk page seems to be very reasonable, and because the time you've taken to sincerly explain the issue, I understand that you are really here in good faith and see no reason to keep the controversial material in the article. I have undone my edit, as you can verify here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Lapin&diff=834460916&oldid=834457258&diffmode=source
Should another editor re-add the material (click here to view the history), for example by undoing the above-linked edit, please point them to the talk page of the article. You can use the following link to do so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicole_Lapin#Controversy
In an edit summary, you can use the following syntax instead, creating a clickable link: [[Talk:Nicole Lapin#Controversy]]
I will copy our conversation here to the article's talk page, so that other editors can quickly learn and understand why the removed section is problematic in its removed form.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue, and thank you for improving this encyclopedia. I will add a "welcome box" to your user talk page with more links that might be interesting and useful to read.
Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 days later: Response by newly registered / anonymous editor

Nicole Lapin

Controversial topics are almost always listed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbelt whitetails (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this uncommented; the article's talk page is better suited than mine for an extended discussion with many editors. I will use my talk page to keep an archived copy of the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up: Copy of other editors' comments on the article's talk page

Disagree. She is responsible for her brand. Needs to be disclosed in its own section just like accolades and personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.201.10.130 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Lapin was cited in New York Times for purchasing social media followers. She does not denie this and in fact she still has fake followers on her Twitter account. I fail to see why this should not be included in her biography. Look at other individuals, controversial behaviors are frequently listed separately much like her accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbelt whitetails (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following-Up Regarding Controversy Section - Nicole Lapin

Hi there, again.

I hope you're enjoying your weekend. I noticed that another user decided to re-add the section we discussed a few days back. If you don't mind, would you please kindly explain how the content re-appeared seemingly the same? I took the time to review the talk page and was surprised by the assertions made in order to preserve the information.

Your reply is greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Eyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonovlaw: Hi, drafting an answer. It is probably advisable not to do anything until I wrote this answer, give me about 10-30 minutes please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC) See below for my answer ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - waiting on word from you.

Thank you for taking the time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following-Up Regarding Controversy Section - Nicole Lapin

@Aharonovlaw: Hi, good to meet you again. :) Some other editors decided to re-add the content; this is a point where I personally am not responsible for the content anymore, and I am in position of a neutral observer. When deciding how to deal with this further, please note that I did my best and the content has been immediately removed by me after you sent me a message. I'll try to explain the current problem and possible steps for you to solve the problem:
  • There is a help entry trying to explain all the overwhelming information that can be seen there: Help:Page_history
  • Having had a quick look at the help entry myself, to be honest, the help entry itself is quite overwhelming in my opinion. :) Here's an easy first start:
  • Click the "prev" link next to the uppermost entry in the list. In this moment, this is probably the edit made by 209.201.10.130.
  • The change that has been introduced by this edit is shown on the right. It is compared to the previous version of the article, which is shown on the left.
  • The editor who has re-introduced the information has not been logged in, and they have been editing as 209.201.10.130 (talk). The explanation has been added to the talk page on 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC). The edit has been added to the article on 14:34, 7 April 2018. We can see that the edit has been done without explanation, which then came later, to the talk page. That's not the recommended way to do it, but probably not an issue itself.[reply]
  • The IP address 209.201.10.130 is a shared enterprise network IP address registered to LANIGAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. As a lawyer, you might be tempted to send them a letter. I wouldn't be able to stop you from doing so, but taking off-wiki action against a Wikipedia editor is extremely discouraged and should only be an absolute last resort. Issuing legal threats, specifically, will (not can: will) cause you to be blocked from Wikipedia editing for as long as the threat is in the air. This is not meant to be a punishment - the exact reasons and policies about this kind of escalation are described here: Wikipedia:No legal threats
  • Specifically, in this case, I think that this means:
  • The people reading the Help Desk question will likely have no background information about the previous conflict. Here are two links you can (and should, in my opinion) add to your help request to help them understand the problem:
  • I have created a little timeline of the events in the second link. Also, the whole conversation is archived there. It's the link to my talk page, but to the specific section they need to have a look at.
  • What can happen next?
  • I personally see three possible outcomes of this situation:
  • The problem is resolved in the way you wanted it to be resolved.
  • A compromise is found. The section might be rewritten (please do not do this yourself - not because you wouldn't be able to, but because other editors will likely not trust you to be neutral in this case ).
  • The situation is not resolved in any way acceptable for you or your client.
  • Let's hope that the latter case doesn't happen. I am not a lawyer, but the chances of legally, using off-wiki action, successfully resolving a dispute on Wikipedia, are - as far as I have read in various media - abysmal. Many before have tried to solve problems that way - but even national intelligence agencies have failed: Censorship of Wikipedia#France
As a conclusion, in a nutshell: The next logical step is sending a detailled, calm message to the help desk, including the two links I've mentioned above.
After having sent your message, it will appear at Wikipedia:Help Desk, and all further answers will go there.
I hope that I could help you – I really did my best. And no matter how this case ends, I wish you a good day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your insight!

Seems that two users are still tugging at the information, so I believe I will follow your prudent advice.

Your time is very much appreciated.

Eyal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, too! For someone new to this complex stuff that's happening behind the scenes, unnoticed by most Wikipedia readers, our procedures must sometimes feel awfully bureaucratic. It genuinely impresses me that you are not frustratedly giving up, as most people in your situation might well do. :) -- I'm always happy to help, and I'll definitely keep watching the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to article talk page. Mirror for my talk page archive

Further discussion of controversy section

Disagree. She is responsible for her brand. Needs to be disclosed in its own section just like accolades and personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.201.10.130 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Lapin was cited in New York Times for purchasing social media followers. She does not denie this and in fact she still has fake followers on her Twitter account. I fail to see why this should not be included in her biography. Look at other individuals, controversial behaviors are frequently listed separately much like her accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbelt whitetails (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is true that Lapin was mentioned in two NY Times articles as one of many well known people who purchased fake twitter followers. But in each case it was a 1-line mention in a list of "influencers" who have allegedly made such purchases, with no details. The Times does not state specifically where the info on Lapin comes from, but much of the info in the articles is said to come from the records o the company selling these 'bots". How reliable that is hard t say. A third cite was to an interview with Lapin. This had no content relevant to the issue, and I have removed it. There is a quoted response from lapin, but this is currently uncited. I have marked it with a {{cn}} tag. I think the sourcing on this is a bit weak from a WP:BLP standpoint. Does anyone have better sources or a view on the matter? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @ToBeFree, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: your input would be welcome. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, you're a godsend. :) Until now, unregistered and newly registered users have basically been long-time edit warring here, each of them in good faith. In this light, it makes me a little sad to see that the Controversy paragraph has been deleted again before consensus is reached. On the other hand, when dealing with negative content on the biography of a living person, I think that additions should be carefully looked at. Good-faith deletions, even with a conflict of interest, might often be less problematic than unsourced additions.
About the citation with the CN tag, that seems to come from an interview available here: http://celebrityfashionista.com/checking-in-with-fashionista-and-financial-expert-nicole-lapin/
I have no idea if that's a reliable source, though. Is it a fashion shop with a little blog next to it? The article footer "To find out more about Nicole, visit NicoleLapin.com or follow her on Twitter and Instagram @NicoleLapin", in my opinion, might be indicating a website accepting paid articles and article-like advertisements. The NY Times would probably not write that below one of their articles.
For this specific type of quote, "Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating", however, even a message from her official Twitter account would probably be a valid source. If I understand correctly, there is no reason to believe that this quote is inaccurate, and Aharonovlaw is probably not contesting the authenticity of this specific quote. It just made no sense to keep it when removing the whole context. Is this correct? @Aharonovlaw
About the first part of the section: Better sources for the accusations are probably hard to find - the New York Times created an original article there. "Reporting was contributed by Manuela Andreoni, Jeremy Ashkenas, Laurent Bastien Corbeil, Nic Dias, Elise Hansen, Michael Keller, Manuel Villa and Felipe Villamor. Research was contributed by Susan C. Beachy, Doris Burke and Alain Delaquérière."
Maybe let's have a closer look at the exact text the discussion seems to be about:
"Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence." (1) (2)
Reference link 1 is indeed accidentally broken here by @Javert2113: using the ProveIt tool. This was later used as a somehow unconventional excuse for this edit. I would have tried to fixed the link instead.
Reference link 2 quotes reference link 1 in a not really encyclopedic way. It might have a reason to stay for context because the "uncited" interview (see above) refers to "Perez Hilton" instead of the NY Times.
  • "One of many": Positive, isn't it? She wasn't the only one, that's a positive message to me.
  • "celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians": Positive. Same here: Even sports stars (god beware, idols!) did this. She's just one of many.
  • "outed": "Outing" implies revealing something that has previously been hidden. This could be sexual orientation, a social taboo, or secret activities. "Controversy" and "outing" are two words belonging together, so at least some people will view "outed" things as being negative.
  • "allegedly": Positive. Questions the validity of the source.
  • "purchasing": Neutral
  • "fake": Neutral unless you know a "more" neutral word. It has a negative connotation, of course, but these followers have not been real individuals, and they have been using fake, stolen identities.
  • "followers": Neutral term used by the Twitter UI itself.
  • "social media network": Neutral, widely used term to describe Twitter.
  • "some of whom used information stolen from real people": It is clear to me that, no matter how accurate the list of celebrities in the NY Times article is, this specific statement is strongly sourced by a reliable source. It's not in a footnote, it is the Times article's main topic.
  • "in order to overstate her following and influence": (Emphasis mine.) Biased. Delete or modify. "Their", referring to the whole group, might be neutral enough. There is no source for this sentence when personally attributing it to one of the people in the list. We can't know if that was really the reason for Nicole Lapin to be involved in this matter.
Next, we need to make sure that the following two sentences, which are put together in a logical order, do really belong to each other: WP:SYNTH
  • Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence.
  • Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating, "I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era."
This seems to be the case, as this article containing the second quote explicitly refers to the first sentence:

We saw you listed on Perez Hilton with the likes of Lisa Rinna, Kathy Ireland and Michael Dell about buying twitter followers, basically every celeb from Kardashians on down does anything they can to rock the social game so it doesn’t seem like breaking news to us in 2018, but what happened there?
I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era.

Before continuing to decide what to do with the "Controversy" section, can we - both those wanting to have it removed, and those wanting to keep it - agree that this analysis is accurate? Are there mistakes in my analysis? Please point them out, as we might use this as a base to decide what to do next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ToBeFree. First, apologies: I must have accidentally broken that link in my haste to iron out the reference itself. Whoops. Second, I have no horse in this race, but your analysis seems spot-on to this editor. Finally, if better sources could be found, I'd appreciate that. And one last thing: thank you so much for your hard work and dedication to this topic. Really. It bodes well for the future of the Wikipedia project. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: Your input would be appreciated on the above analysis. Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response below. Aharonovlaw (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up to Further Discussion of Controversy Section (ToBeFree's analysis)

Dear ToBeFree, thank you for taking the time to put forth a well-thought-out analysis.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had several personal conversations with ToBeFree about my position on ToBeFree's talk page. At the time I involved the help desk, it was upon ToBeFree's guidance and assertion that ToBeFree would be taking the position of "neutral observer."

Furthermore, the individual contributor behind the numeric IP address contacted me offline, and we had a nice discussion about the reasoning, motive and purpose behind the content (and its re-addition over 3 consecutive months). By the end of the discussion, it was concluded by the user that he would "cease" (not intended to assert any legal position, as that was not my choice of word) re-posting the content and/or citations and he agreed that the content should remain off Ms. Lapin's page.

Back to ToBeFree's analysis. I appreciate the piecemeal analysis, but I fear it may be overlooking the greater issue. First, the sum of the content (and its position on Ms. Lapin's page) is what seems to be problematic. Individual words can fairly be analyzed, but there's no question that the content was meant to cast a negative light on Ms. Lapin (again, the individual contributor's position, not mine).

Since the NY Times article seems to be the one authority that is least problematic, I went ahead and did my Wiki research on the other individuals named in that article. As far as I got, I didn't see a single other individual's wiki page even mention the article or any applicable controversy relating to the alleged actions. More importantly, there was NO controversy section related to the alleged activity. I even went as far as to find a similar influencer with a similar celebrity status in a similar sector. I invite you to search for Britt McHenry, conservative writer and pundit.

In light of these facts, I believe that, if anything, fairly addressing Ms. Lapin's alleged involvement can only be accomplished by a simple factual statement under her career section stating that a NY Times article mentioned her. Other than that, and specifically because no other individual named in the article has been written about on Wiki, and it would seem to be unfair and, in the absence of the exact same treatment on other's Wiki pages, biased. I am certain that isn't the Wiki community's intention.

I hope that clarifies and respectfully addresses the above.

Most respectfully,

Aharonovlaw (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mr. Aharonov. @ToBeFree: I should hope I have not breached any neutral interest you have or had; that was neither my intent, nor, I should hope, the consequence of any action I have taken.
Having further examined the article, and having done some investigation myself, I'll note that Mr. Aharonov's claim is correct regarding the possible purchasing of followers: it's not noted on the pages for Ms McHenry, Lynn Tilton, Michael Dell, Brooke Magnanti, Ford O'Connell — cf. Richard Roeper, in which it is only mentioned due to further action being taken by the Chicago Sun-Times. As such, until and unless further action is precipitated, in the interests of WP:NPOV regarding Wikipedia articles, I do believe that the removal of such a claim is quite clearly acceptable, pending consensus and future discussion. — Javert2113 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a happy ending to me. Thank you all for your time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree, thank you for all of your input. Thank you to all of the wiki community members I've connected with over the last few days. You were all wonderful - and above all else, extremely fair & professional. Aharonovlaw (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree and Aharonovlaw: In light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am afraid that I cannot regard the absence of similar content on the articles about other individuals also mentioned as a significant argument for removing it from here. If it were, that would mean that such information must be added at the me time to all such articles, or never to any, or such an argument would always work for removing it from the place it was first added. That is not how Wikipedia works. My primary question is whether the NY Times mention, which is clearly reliable, but in which Ms Lapin is only listed in a single line in each story, is sufficient to support the mention here. If it is, this should be mentioned here, and quite possibly added to the other relevant articles also. Otherwise it should not. If other independent reliable sources are available to support the Times mention, that strengthens the case for mentioning the matter here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a single line item is not significant enough to mention in its own section. Blackbelt whitetails (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Yes, that's understandable – My reply was mainly referring to another factor: Consensus to remove the section among these who originally fought for its inclusion. The edit war seems to have been resolved peacefully.
In the interest of not censoring Wikipedia, someone who wants to have the NY Times mention included somewhere in the article could probably add it to the "Career" section, just as Aharonovlaw suggested himself, if I understand correctly. When doing so, please have a look at my analysis again and modify/delete at least the part identified as "Biased." by me. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a platform to be abused for mudslinging. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry

I am sorry about that little prank. Hope you forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.201.242 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry, I'm trying to help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-15

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Some pages have templates that describe problems with that article. There is now more information for mobile readers and what is wrong with the article and how they could help fix it. [2]
  • You can now thank users for many more actions than edits to a page. This was one of the top ten requests in the Wishlist Survey last year. [3]
  • The sort order of categories will have errors for a short time starting Monday 9 April (UTC). We are upgrading versions of an internationalisation library (ICU) and using a script to update the database. This will take between a few hours and a few days depending on wiki size. You can read more details. [4]
  • Tag filter titles will now work better on wikis where the tag filter title is in a language that is written in another direction than the language of that wiki. This could for example be an English title (written from left to right) on a Hebrew or an Arabic wiki (written from right to left). [5]

Problems

  • The bookmark icon for saved filters on the recent changes page disappeared because of new icon changes. This has now been fixed. [6]
  • For a week in March rollbacks got both the rollback and the undo tag on the recent changes page and other pages where you see tags. This has now been fixed. [7]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 April. It will be on all wikis from 12 April (calendar).
  • Patrolled edits now have three states instead of two. Recent changes filters are updated to show unpatrolled, autopatrolled and manually patrolled edits. [8]

Meetings

  • Recurrent item You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 10 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 11 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

HACC, Central Pennsylvania's Community College

Hi, I added disclosure information in the description. I didn't see where I could add this information on the page. I used HACC's website (hacc.edu¹) to update the information about the College. The information that is/was on the page before my changes is terribly outdated and inaccurate in many places. I did not write the content on the College's website. Please advise if there is more that I need to do. M.P. Saylor, newsroom@hacc.edu, a member of the College's Integrated Marketing Communications Department ithe Office of College Advancement. Thank you! Mpsaylor (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¹ref-tag converted to normal external link to prevent layout problems on my talk page :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpsaylor: Hi, nice to meet you. :) Sorry, but I can not find the disclosure information that you added "in the description". Which of your contributions are you referring to? Have you really already read the links that I have provided on your talk page as an attempt to explain the problem?
From HACC's IP range, and by other users with a possible conflict of interest, multiple biased edits have been done to the article in the past, and you seem to be continuing a questionable chain of promotional edits made from your institution to the Wikipedia article describing your institution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Widr (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I was incorrect have now added an updated version of my correction. I believe this new edit is even closer to the truth than my original edit.

Thank you for your message.


I have now added an updated version of my correction. I believe this new edit is even closer to the truth than my original edit.

Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:1101:1030:1407:C91A:A30:F81 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was sadly not the problem. The article quoted a New York Times article, and you changed the wording to something that was not given in the source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely in the dark

the picture right before

as to what makes File:Lisa Law & unidentified woman.jpg a derivative work? The logo on the guys hat? The tee-shirt design? The bass Fender guitar head? Please explain what the image within the image is. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word "Zildjan" ? What? Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I just found this note from you, "so where is the original photo if it is yours?" What the f**k is that supposed to mean? "if it is yours?" Carptrash (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carptrash: Calm down please. I am currently uploading as many images from en.wikipedia.org to commons.wikimedia.org as possible, and because some of the already transferred images turned out to be copyright violations, I was told to be more careful than I was before. So I'm now really carefully checking whether it is plausible that the uploader really has the rights to release it under a free license.
Your image is a derivative of a larger photo. You either downscaled it, or you cut out a part of it. The EXIF data says that it has been created using a PENTAX X-5 camera, and that camera has a 16 megapixel sensor. The uploaded image has 1,000 × 750 pixels, file size: 107 KB. What happened here? It would be nice if you could take a moment to explain this in the file description. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down? A photo of mine that I took and posted 5 years ago is suddenly up for speedy deletion? Yeah, I probably photos hoped it, it might have been one of those huge 48" X 64" pictures that I sized down. So that makes it derivative? I suspect that when you were told to be more careful this is NOT what the teller had in mind. Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carptrash: "Delayed". A normal deletion discussion usually also lasts a week, so there is nothing extremely speedy with this "delayed speedy deletion". There is really no need to panic.
The copyright rules on Commons and Wikipedia exist to protect your rights as a photographer. Imagine someone else took this downsized version of your image from your website, and uploaded it as "own work" on Wikipedia. This happens. All I'm trying is to make sure that you have actually taken this photo. A short notice like "Original photo taken by me, downsized for easier upload" or something like that in the "Source" field of the image would be nice. When adding it, you can also delete the deletion notice and my comment, as the possible issue is then completely resolved.
About being more careful, well, we've even had self-made "oil paintings" that turned out to be digital manipulations of stolen images. Feel free to have a look at my talk page on Wikimedia Commons to see what has been nominated for deletion so far. I was surprised, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just one additional note - I have been called "naïve" today for believing someone who explicitly wrote: "Photograph taken by me at the opening of Kunsthaus Zurich October 2011" below an image with unclear copyright status. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many worse things to be called than "naive." On wikipedia we are told to "assume good faith." I would suggest that in order to reconcile these two that you check out the editors involved. There are lots of clues to be found. Remember editing wikipedia is rarely about how quickly things need to get done as opposed to how to get it right. Carptrash (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carptrash: That's nice. Thank you. You made me believe in good faith again. I wish you a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are friends now I can casually point out that the other woman in the picture is my wife who also appears, unnamed, here and here Carptrash (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah :D - and now she can proudly say that she appears in multiple Wikipedia articles 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is my idea, not hers. Carptrash (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "warning"

I really don't care much about your "warning", when you can't even tell me what it is about. How am I supposed to take you seriously then? mrloop (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Kirk Larsen: Please have a closer look at the edit history of your talk page, and at your list of contributions. The warning was about your edit-war in the 2019 World Snooker Championship article, and as you had deleted the previous warnings, I didn't notice that you have already been warned. When I decided to add the warning, your talk page contained only positive messages. The IP was a few seconds quicker and restored the previously existing warning messages, so that my warning was automatically added below them. Surprised, I then had a look at your talk page history and restored the version you prefer. I even explained to the IP editor that deleting warnings from an own talk page is okay and should not be reverted. Is there now really any problem that you have with my behavior? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. mrloop (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 July 2024

Hello, ToBeFree. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis revert

I think you may have made a mistake with your revert. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 14:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was my bad BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I had a quick look again, I almost thought the same! :D Thank you for the message. Better one too much than one too less ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Profiling statistics for an abuse filter tell how often edits match the filter. The statistics for the abuse filters were reset after 10000 actions. Wikis can now decide to reset it more or less often. They can file a phabricator task to do so. [9]
  • Advanced item Abuse filters will now treat integers and floats more precisely. For example, 5/2 was rounded down to 2 but will now be 2.5 and 2*4 will be the integer 8 and not the floating-point number 8.0. Division values are the only ones changed. For the rest only strict comparisons (=== and !==) will be affected leaving the values unchanged. [10][11]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 April. It will be on all wikis from 19 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 17 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 18 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Solar cycle 25

Your action illustrates how Wikipedia's procedures are weighted towards the preservation of scientific nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.161.117 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Solar cycle 25. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any reflection on (Solar Cycle 25) substance instead of (Wikipedia) procedure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.161.117 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ Talk:Solar_cycle_25 ← There please. Not here, there. It's really that easy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No reflection. Emptiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.161.117 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for helping with the edit war on that page about the shrine :) Eamesheard (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eamesheard: Oh, thank you very much! Happy to help! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Hujr ibn 'Adi article, around 2018-04-10, 21:33) ~ ToBeFree

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your devoted and meritorious efforts to resolve the particular N—— L—— affair, done with wit, grace, and a lawyer's precision of word and phrase, it is my pleasure to award you this Barnstar of Diplomacy. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: also, tell me how you got your barnstars placed on your User page, as top icons, sometime? Thanks. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Javert2113: This is a heart-warming late-evening surprise and makes this night a beautiful night for me – and I can't thank you enough for all the time you spend on finding COI/paid-editing cases like this one, and helping a lot to resolve them as peacefully and consensual as possible. It is always a pleasure to see your name appearing on a talk page.
About the technical question, oh, I took some time to figure out a way that makes this as easy as possible. I wondered how some users do it, and first had a look at Oshwah's page, which is beautiful and has inspired me to create the talk page button at the top of this talk page. For the icons at the top, it uses multiple-level transclusions and detailled syntax in an own template in his userspace... There had to be an easier way for my 2 stars! So I pretty much entered “user top icon wikipedia” in Google, and tada! Template:Top_icon - this is really easy to use, feel free to copy the syntax from the bottom of my user page. I have put it there because it technically makes no difference where it appears in the code, but putting it at the bottom makes it easy to maintain and keeps the rest of the code easy to read. When it becomes a huuuge list of over 100 awards, you might want to take more sophisticated solutions like Oshwah's one instead, but I am far away from that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Double Negative

Original message by ToBeFree on Syedmqo's talk page:

Hi :) One question

Could you clarify if you meant "no 'no muslim'" instead of "no muslim" there? A double negative? Because your edit changed the meaning of the text

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_Mosque,_Inc.&diff=834282961&oldid=813954910&diffmode=source

Also, please check if the sources actually say something else than what is currently written in the article. Does the source say "no muslim", or did you change this because the term "white" is wrong there in your personal opinion? Please note that the term is re-used in the next sentence, and you have not changed that one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes brother sorry, I will make that edit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedmqo (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, it isn't white people not being allowed. It is non Muslims are not allowed. There are white Muslims as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedmqo (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Syedmqo: But that's exactly what I meant. You clarified here on my talk page: non muslims are not allowed. Your edit, however, was: 'no muslim' people were permitted. That's not the same, it's the opposite! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Before correcting the edit, please make sure that your wording is really given by the source, "Marable, pp. 327–328." & "Goldman, p. 170." -- you're essentially modifying a text quoted from two books, and you need to make sure that you're not putting your words in someone else's mouth. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.180.234.145 Not Editing In Good Faith

Hi, just FYI, if you look at the edits by this user they are all additions of characters from Jo-Jo's Bizarre Adventure to random pages about real life sports figures, WWII fliers, etc. It's one thing for joking vandalism of Wiki pages on sports, but it's pretty galling to insert fake names into articles on people who fought and sometimes died for their country. I don't need to AGF if an IP is clearly vandalizing. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finktron: Thank you :) Without the relevant background information, and without deeper knowledge of the WWII flier subject, I assumed good faith when reverting the strange edit. I only revert something without using the edit summary if the vandalism is indisputable and obvious; that wasn't the case for me personally here. I rarely add "Vandalism" to the edit summary because it could be wrong and then permanently stays there.
The IP had no warnings on their page, further contributing to the "good faith" image. Please warn users, especially when you think that they are vandalizing. They will probably not be blocked by an administrator unless they have been properly warned. To do so easily, you can use Twinkle, or manually have a look at these two pages:
Also note that Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing is not necessarily vandalism, and labelling the wrong person as "vandal" can be construed as personal attack against another editor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow these instructions in the future. Before adding the "vandal" tag I did however look through their edit history and see that all names added to various pages were clearly inserts from Jo-Jo's Bizarre Adventure. That doesn't qualify as "disruptive editing" per Wiki's definition, since it's not POV, OR, advocacy or self-promotion. In this case the IP action specifically falls under WP:HOAXES. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Finktron: You're right, of course. This user vandalized the page and I lacked information to see what you already knew. Thank you again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • All Wikipedias now have Page Previews.
  • The iOS and Android apps now have synced reading lists. This means you can save articles to a private list that can be seen on your other devices if you use the apps.
  • The icons in the 2010 wikitext editor have changed. [14]
  • The visual editor and the 2017 wikitext ask you to write an edit summary after you press Publish. This button now also shows an ellipsis. This is to show that pressing Publish is not the last step. [15]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 April. It will be on all wikis from 26 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 24 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 25 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • <mapframe> will come to most Wikipedias in May. This means that you can put interactive maps in the articles. Nine Wikipedias that use a strict version of flagged revisions will not get this feature in May. [16]
  • The rollback function could change. This was a German community request. All editors with rollback rights can leave feedback on the proposed solution. The last day to leave feedback is 4 May (UTC).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Managing a conflict of interest

Hello,

I am responding to your allegations of conflict of interest. Please assume good faith. In general, I would like you to refrain from making allegations of conflict of interest in response to good faith editors who remove unsupported defamation based on unreliable, self-published sources due to vandalism and as blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. The user whose information was removed clearly has more, albeit irrelevant, ties to ProBoards based on their own hosted subdomain, provided to them by ProBoards for use. In other words, I feel that removal of an entire section devoted to a single business complaint being irrelevant to an operations of any organization does not justify assumption of conflict of interest nor does it warrant a conflict of interest user notice tag, especially when it's obvious conflict of interest does not exist.

Thank you. 76.0.6.168 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Hello, thank you very much for taking the time to explain the situation.
The second page you have linked to is an essay on civility. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
I was unsure about your contributions. Edits like this one can sometimes indicate an employee's attempt to enforce trademark capitalization, sometimes not in accordance with MOS:TMCAPS. You can find a past example of such a case here: User talk:ToBeFree#Hi-Lift Jack. The "ProBoards" capitalization, now that I have a look at this again, seems to be perfectly okay, though! I was probably overcautious here.
Removal of an entire criticism section about the same company also made me raise an eyebrow. This was the edit that made me have a closer look at the page and the previous edits. You seem to be right about the removal, however, and I have not undone or meant to criticize this contribution.
To be honest, I am somehow surprised by the general appearance of your message. I'd like to note that to me, there seems to be a slight discrepancy between the number of contributions ever submitted from this IP address and the well-researched, sophisticated response on my talk page. I'm writing this because it might help to clear a misunderstanding on my part: To me, it looked as if your first contributions to Wikipedia have been made to the ProBoards article. If I had known that you are already very familiar with our detailled, complex policies and guidelines, I would of course not have informed you about something you already know.
When writing "We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article ProBoards, you may have a conflict of interest (COI)", I have not been assuming bad faith. If it has looked like an accusation, I am honestly sorry for that. I always assume good faith, even if an editor actually turns out to have a strong conflict of interest. This might sound weird to you -- but let me try to give you an extreme example: Imagine someone removing negative statements from the article about a beloved person. In a well-meant attempt to help someone else, they are acting in best faith. None of them is intending to harm the project; they are just sometimes unaware of whether or how much their affiliation has influenced their editing.
The COI information message on your talk page has not been meant as a kind of accusation, especially not of bad faith. It was meant to serve an entirely different purpose: To inform someone who seemed to be new to the encyclopedia about some possibly relevant policies, and maybe to invite them to responding with a quick, simple clarification. I personally, in your situation, would simply have responded on the IP talk page, with the words:
"Hi, I am aware of these policies and do not work for the company. I receive no compensation for my edits; this might have been a false alarm."
And maybe, when wondering about the reason, I would have added:
"Could you explain why you think that I might have a conflict of interest here?"
So -- please, and if it's just to explain this to people who might make the same wrong assumptions as I did -- could you write something like that below the message on your talk page? When you did, the "possible conflict of interest" case has been nicely solved. Feel free to remove my message from your talk page then; it is not meant to denounce or expose you. Adding a little statement below it before clearing the page hopefully ensures that nobody re-adds the message later.
Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

...Yes, the reason I edited the page was to "change the meaning of the words." I effectively did just that. Grammarians do not talk about modifying sentences, which you said I should have been doing. It is always words which are modified. Despite this, you found my edit wanting in some mysterious fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(This specific message is probably about the following edit: [1] ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this comes across in a rude way, but I have thought about this for a long time and now decided just to copy a possibly relevant discussion between you and another editor about a similar issue.

I studied grammar in college. I know for a fact that Japan import is a correct use of the language. The word import modifies Japan. Thanks for nothing, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
— Talk:Gloria_Union#Japan_only

I don't know where you studied grammar, but you need to demand a refund of your money. --Khajidha (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
— Talk:Gloria_Union#Japan_only

This seems to be especially relevant because you declared yourself, literally, to be "Grammar police" "knocking" on other editors' "doors" to correct them. You do even "insist" native English speakers to "stop editing" because you say that they have a "very poor grasp of the English language". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=838597932"