User talk:ToBeFree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 19 July 2018 (→‎Liferay Article: Oh! "an"?). 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.
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

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. [1]
  • 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. [2]
  • 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. [3]
  • 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). [4]

Problems

  • The bookmark icon for saved filters on the recent changes page disappeared because of new icon changes. This has now been fixed. [5]
  • 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. [6]

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. [7]

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]

9 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. [8]
  • 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. [9][10]
  • 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. [13]
  • 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. [14]

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. [15]
  • 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/Archive 1#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]

Archive copy of a talk page discussion that made me happy

Pages to look at when reading this archive entry

Short summary: Multiple-account case noticed and solved peacefully without WP:SPI

The following messages have been archived from User_talk:John_doe123456987&oldid=838733085 and copied from User_talk:Djumbo75&oldid=838747943.

Messages that had been deleted and are only here for my talk page archive

These messages have been deleted by the user. They have only been added to ToBeFree's talk page archive for context and record.

April 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Benjamin Charles-Lemaire has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Benjamin Charles-Lemaire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REASON = slight eligibility, controversial content on legal issues, does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus...

Djumbo75's talk page

The following messages have been copied from User_talk:Djumbo75&oldid=838747943.

Messages originally sent to John doe123456987

Article for Deletion

Hi :) Do I understand this correct: you're more active on the French Wikipedia? And an article got deleted there? You could try this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead of a speedy deletion tag and blanking a whole page without discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Charles-Lemaire.

Hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome

Welcome message by Nanophosis (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Djumbo75, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Djumbo75, good luck, and have fun. Nanophosis (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to User:John doe123456987?

Hi, sorry if I am wrong, but you have answered a question directed to that user, and you have responded instead of them on the AfD page. Your accounts have been created within the same hour, on the same four wikis.

If you are one person controlling both accounts, this can be okay, but needs to be done with great care. In this case, where both editors edit the same article, it can be problematic. If you are using both accounts, I would suggest deciding which one you would like to keep, and to stop using the other for now. In this case, please add this text to the source code of John doe's talk page: {{User alternative account|Djumbo75}}. This would nicely solve the situation, if it's true. There won't be any problems then, I think. You can see here how the message would look like: Template:User alternative account

If you are related, maybe know each other and talked about this issue, please say so - that's okay, but also needs to be done carefully, to avoid it from being interpreted as "canvassing" or "meatpuppetry".

If there is absolutely no connection between you two, I'm sorry for the irrelevant question. I hope that you can see why I thought that there might be a connection, but I might well be wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason : unable to open the other. Hey! I wanted to answer you with my first account but I can not reopen it since, I can not find the password so I use more than this new account and only this one, the previous one can not anymore to be used, in your understanding. Now, I use this account: Djumbo75.

Alright, that's a good reason. I'll deal with the rest. I assume you have no e-mail address set for the previous account, so that you can not restore the password via e-mail? One more reason to add an e-mail address to your current one. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yeah! I would not fail to do so, thank you very much for ur attention :) Plz how long for this article to be deleted from EN WP? Okay, this has nothing to do but I really like your piano videos ;) TY. Have a nice day ToBeFree (Djumbo75 (talk))
Thank you, and you're welcome. No problem. Deletion discussions usually last a week. This might seem like a long time, but it ensures that we can get a solid consensus about deletion or keeping. When the article is deleted, it may not be simply added to Wikipedia again. To avoid mistakes, a week of discussion seems to be quite okay, I think. Oh, and thank you! I didn't expect anyone to actually watch this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
on the French wikipedia, the article has been removed in two days for lack of eligibility and on the global in 4 days: http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire bcuz the person who created it was the author of his page and I think he will constantly restore it as in his country unfortunately :(
Yes, I needed to relax tonight, your piano tunes are relaxing tee-hee :)
Oooh - now I finally understand what Wikimonde is. It is a Wikipedia mirror! I personally would suggest using the original French Wikipedia instead, where you can easily edit all pages and contribute own text!
Hehe, that's cool, thanks. Good night! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for talk page archive: The specific link to plus.wikimonde.com is not a mirror page, but the comment was true nevertheless: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Charles-Lemaire

I went to sleep, and this is what I had to see when I came back. ~ ToBeFree (talk)

Discussion between Tifftiff1234 and Djumbo75 on my talk page

The following discussion involved unacceptable deletion of other users' discussion entries, which have been restored by ToBeFree.

Hi, please be aware that johndoe and Djumbo is one and only person, even if he said after it's a mistake, it's not. He did same this on Wikimonde. He created ware edition to talk to admin and said it was a problem to make page deleted. He also created fake account to make french page deleted. Just look at the vote : every people who voted wasn't active account, didnt vote to any vote before. Plus, the vote was months ago and the article was not the same in French than English, and there're many sources. I just wanted you to be aware that this page will be center of very personal opinions, settle accounts and POV, just because this person is middle of huge debate like same sex mariage and got many probleme with extrem right wing. - User was banned by Wikimonde because using fake account and trying to make credibile he was admin. (covnersation is here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Wikimonde:Bistro ) Tifftiff1234 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: It's very funny your comment because he knows very well who I am LMAO (no luck for you!) It is to him that I asked to change my account name can no longer use my old account! so I do not have several WP account as you pretend I have one and the one that helped me edit....(12:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)) You do that his innuendo, there is nothing conclusive in article on Google, even another person says it from the US: :: "A quick Google search of Charles-Lemaire turns up no reliable sources on him. Absent other evidence, I would agree with your assessment: lack of notability". & Mdash; Javert2113 ( talk) 00:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC) —  also, you have been banned from WP and Wikimonde okay not me! You only insinuate that it is you who create all the articles... And you are one and the same person on all WPs to create this page. Everything you report I did not even know !! You are in a conflict of the far right? or gay marriage, I did not know it ... The only thing you find about you is pedophilia cases on all Google pages and nothing else you write. But, I have only one account it is his which is dramatic. Do you make insinuations without proof, yours about your name... blogger? OK! For the short films nikon contests like thousands, just artistic agent... Ask yourself the right question, I'm talking about one thing for my part of eligibility. And I have nothing to do with any other WP I report facts. Preceding unsigned comment added by Djumbo75 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please STOP spamming and answering everything that doesnt concern. You're just trying to do what you did on WikiPlus Monde. An you know you where like every fake account you add, admin said it :
Here in conclusions http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire
Here before an anonymouse account with no contributions deleted it : http://plus.wikimonde.com/w/index.php?title=Wikimonde:Bistro&diff=prev&oldid=851101
All accounts you used to spam the page are blocked, it's actually written here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Nesquik.prod or here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/AJ and also here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Fm790
You're just trying to do exactly the same things : spamming and war editing, hoping that everybody will be bored and delete the article. But just tell us what are so involved in suppressing article about this specific person ? We were like 5/6 working on the draft, and you never came. You said that it's not neutral, promotional or have juridical issues, if so that's not a reason for deletion but for banners and improvment. Feel free to write more, add stuff.
If it's a source problem, feel free to delete primary sources and only let secondary sources, because there are like dozen secondary sources :
https://www.google.fr/search?q=%22benjamin+lemaire%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR781FR781&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX286F4d_aAhWOL1AKHYbQAaUQ_AUICigB&biw=1056&bih=718
https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR781FR781&biw=1056&bih=718&ei=6N_lWoPjGYzRwALgnYOYDw&q=different+lemaire+transgender+festival&oq=different+lemaire+transgender+festival&gs_l=psy-ab.3...226.796.0.877.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..8.0.0....0.hT8WAKbRCaM
Now please just respect rules of debate and WP rules. Tifftiff1234 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


OMG this is totally crazy, answer deleted this answer and is vandalising every pages linking to the subjet... Wtf is that ? Tifftiff1234 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOW STOP ! This is the 2nd time user deleting my comments here, while he's not included in conversation ! Tifftiff1234 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All accounts you used to spam the page are blocked to Tifftiff1234, it's actually written here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/liloula or IP here on WP,

PROOF => CheckUser note: The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200 <==== :=), IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona account Tifftiff1234 and IP one only contrib. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017. LOONY!!! I may say that I am not those people they cite.. But he returns the situation to his advantage when several contributors have for several months since he was the only person who contributed to the article. Accuse me to be accounts that I am not! Ur masquerade it's so insane! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djumbo75 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the links provided are not serious: :: https://www.google.fr/search?q=%22benjamin+lemaire%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR781FR781&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX286F4d_aAhWOL1AKHYbQAaUQ_AUICigB&biw=1056&bih=718 the titles are => "The community manager of the stars in jail for corruption of minors" or "The legal disputes of the agent of youtubeurs Benjamin Lemaire" the others speak of a vinegrower of the same name (2 articles in the provided web links ), there is that short film of 2 minutes (different) ! Speaks only of judicial and only one recent article, so still not notability. Let believe that we speak only of him.--Djumbo75 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: SPI blocks

ToBeFree has opened an SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Djumbo75


~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Aftermath: The article has actually been deleted, speedily.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Charles-Lemaire

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-18

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

  • The parameter for unpatrolled edits in recent changes filters changed name. You might need to update saved filters and links. [16]

Problems

  • Advanced item We are migrating wikis from Tidy to Remex. Because of a bug the 250 wikis which do not yet use Remex were switched on 23 April. This is two months early. This meant that pages with broken wikitext showed wrongly to readers. The bug was undone the next day. You can help fix broken wikitext to avoid this problem when your wiki switches. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. You can follow the process on Phabricator. [17]

Changes later this week

  • You will be able use CodeMirror in the 2017 wikitext editor on all wikis. CodeMirror helps with syntax highlighting. It has previously been a beta feature and only available on wikis with scripts that are written from left to right. [18]
  • When an administrator blocks someone they will have a calendar they can use to choose when the block ends. This is to make it easier to pick a specific date. [19]
  • Advanced item You can soon turn on the Performance Inspector in the Editing section in your preferences. It shows information about the performance of pages. This could be the size of modules in the page, how many CSS selectors are defined on the page and how many are used, or the size of the images on the page. This tool is intended to help editors fix pages that load slowly. [20]
  • Advanced item There is a new abuse filter function called equals_to_any. You can use it to check if its first argument is equal (===) to any of the following ones. For example you can use it to check if the page's namespace is amongst a given set of values in a more compact way than you could earlier. You can read more on mediawiki.org.
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 May. It will be on all wikis from 3 May (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 1 May 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 2 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The Wikimedia Cloud Services team is working on a new project called Toolhub. The goal is to make it easier for Wikimedians to discover software tools they can use. You can leave feedback on the talk page or email jhare@wikimedia.org to leave private feedback.
  • Advanced item All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in all namespaces will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 2 May. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Wikibooks wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch on 9 May. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. [21][22][23]

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

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Error?

I provided a citation for the chilean cuisine article, but it still got removed. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondGamer lite (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DiamondGamer lite: Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources in other Wikipedia articles, because this could lead to circular referencing (WP:REFLOOP). RA0808 talkcontribs 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondGamer lite: Hi -- the second undo has not been made by me: (diff link)
The reason that it has been removed again is probably that a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. Please have a look at WP:RS, then feel free to add your information with a reliable source again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks @RA0808: you have been faster ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Edit

I don't know how this works, I was simply trying to update the Elias WWE page to be accurate as his listed finishing move is very outdated. I watch wrestling every single week and he has been using "Drift Away" as his finishing move for about a year now. Here are some links, I'm not sure if they qualify as actual sources for you or where I'm supposed to look for said sources, but I hope this is enough to convince you that my information is correct.


https://www.prowrestling.com/watch-elias-hit-drift-away-wwe-uk-stars-added-indie-event-another-wwe-uk-possibly-making-nxt-appearance/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtIQ73eV1Mo

"Drift Away (Swinging fisherman neckbreaker) – 2017–present" https://www.sportskeeda.com/player/elias-samson


Cheers

24.212.253.184 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you, but you don't need to convince me on my talk page. Just add that link to your edit! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the first and third link as references and restored your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_(wrestler)&diff=839041499&oldid=839039465&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent to 24.212.253.184's talk page

Done :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_(wrestler)&type=revision&diff=839041499&oldid=839039382&diffmode=source

Adding references is easier than this might look like -- the simplest way to do it is:

<ref>https://www.example.com/my-reference.html</ref>

Oh, and thank you for taking the time to improve the article! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Note: This is not a recent discussion; when you're reading this, it might be months or years old. However, I will keep it at the top of the talk page because I hope that 75.110.241.177 might come back and see it one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion; already read by 75.110.241.177

Main discussion

This section has been moved to the bottom of the talk page and merged with an update created under a new heading. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...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]
Before continuing to answer this question, it might be helpful to copy link to a possibly relevant discussion between you and another editor about a similar issue:
Talk:Gloria_Union#Japan_only Note by ToBeFree, 02:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC): I have removed the original quotes from this section, because I had a look at this conversation a week later, and directly quoting this discussion was not a nice thing to do. Both editors have been attacking each other, and it would be bad taste of me to actively mirror that in my talk page archive forever. I had originally quoted the messages from 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC) and 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC). Even when quoting the discussion here, taking that aggressive section out of its context is not a good idea.
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 articles for grammar" because you say that they have a "very poor grasp of the English language".
The reason why I made this edit is that you have not simply fixed grammar errors. Instead, you have changed the meaning of the words without modifying the overall sentence, resulting in a logical error. This specific edit is not related to grammar, it is related to logic. If you believe this to be a grammatical correction, I am afraid that other editors' reactions to your other edits might not have been entirely made up out of thin air. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you can't "modify a sentence" because no such thing is possible. You may as well speak of "modifying DNA to transform a human into an ape". That is the state of it. You must not edit Wikipedia for grammar if you are unaware of how grammar is to be constructed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Bad taste

Note by ToBeFree, 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC): This seems to be about User talk:ToBeFree#Grammar and User talk:75.110.241.177

I find it in bad taste for you to dredge up discussion that I've had with other people, and then make remarks about them on my talk page. Clearly this is something you're set on doing. When you remark that I said a user should stop editing, you are wrong. I said this user should stop editing for grammar. You PROBABLY should know better than this, but English may be a barrier here, because you admit on your page that you speak only "advanced" English, and not near-perfect or professional (the other categories). In any case, if you think that you have the right to correct me in the fashion that you have, then you are mistaken. You are not a moderator here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts: "~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I was able to address the quote problems pointed out by you. See diff. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main discussion, continued

This does not seem to actually answer the problem; I'll try to explain it differently.
before your edit after your edit
considered to be "German" considered at the time to be not fully German
You say that this is a grammatical correction. This might be the case if the quotation marks around the word "German" are actually meant to say "not fully German". I do not believe this to be the intention behind these quotation marks. The quotation marks, in this sentence, are not implying incompleteness; they are used to quote a word. If you do not like this usage of the quotation marks, a grammatical fix would look like this:
before your edit after your edit
considered to be "German" considered to be German
Any other change can not be justified by grammar. It adds your personal interpretation to the article; it changes the meaning of the sentence, and you did so without providing a source. This, and only this, is why I have undone the edit. I have received a "Thank You" from another experienced editor* for this edit some hours later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Clarification for later readers: I am not talking about Khajidha here, who has joined the discussion afterwards. The "Thank You" has been sent by an uninvolved editor who likely had the article on their watchlist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here is the quoted sentence from the article. It hints and suggests that some of the people weren't German enough, due to them not using the full black-red-gold colors. The Frankfurt Parliament had declared the black-red-gold as the official colours of the German Confederation, with the red in the tricolour most likely referencing the Hanseatic League, and the gold and black symbolizing Austria as its empire, considered to be "German", had an influence over (what would become) southern Germany. The person who wrote it (not sure who it was) probably thought "gosh, Austria isn't Germany, I should point out this fact" but he or she was not able to do it appropriately. As far as his or her view goes, I cannot defend a prejudiced view. I only know to correct the grammar where I see it lacking. It may require a citation needed tag. --75.110.241.177 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who claims to be a part of the "grammar police" and to have studied grammar, you have the most abysmal understanding of it. User:ToBeFree has explained it perfectly to you in the above post. The sentence you quoted means that the reason Austria used the gold and black was that they were German. German in the cultural and linguistic sense and not in the sense of a German nationality or citizenship. The quotation marks around German are to indicate that it is to be understood in that sense of "German, but not of Germany". It's another way of saying "ethnic German". And yes, you can modify a sentence. I have NO idea where you got that particular dictum of yours from. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's not resort to attacks again. Since the last few hours, I'm researching about this, reading a lot about the historical circumstances and refreshing what we learned in our history school classes. From what I have read so far, simply removing the quotation marks is indeed a valid correction, and - whether the author has meant that or not - it is relatively likely that Austria has actually been considered to be German in this regard. Your point about it having been viewed as "ethnic German" is especially nice, because this might really be what it means, and I lacked the words to describe this. Please, at the very least on my own talk page, edit the source of this page and add <s> at the beginning of your previous message. Then add </s> after the first period, before "User:ToBeFree". Alternatively, you can re-word the sentence to be less aggressive. The rest of your statement seems to be very valid, and I thank you for taking the time to explain what I would have required more research for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yes, a Citation Needed tag might be good to have there! The whole discussion might not have been needed if there had been a valid reference clarifying the meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a part of the grammar police. There's no need to put it in quotes, dubiously, and darkly, as the person who wrote German on the page did. You can see, from this, that indeed the purpose is to make the word German seem reprehensible, disreputable, and questionable. For all that he proved my point indirectly, you can safely ignore Khajidha. He is a resident troll on this website. --75.110.241.177 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is your personal interpretation, which I do not share. I have added a "citation needed" tag, as you had nicely suggested, and will completely remove the relevant sentence if no reliable citation is added in the next few weeks. Please do not personally attack other editors, and remove the last two sentences from your latest message on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to be wrong about grammar, but you should not edit any pages for grammar. Thanks for nothing. --75.110.241.177 (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this one month later

I'm sorry for my initial hostile reaction. I have been clearly uncivil here, and I should not have let this incident stress me out. I had originally quoted a personal attack towards you, which is definitely not okay, and I had even originally marked it in bold to emphasize which part of the quoted discussion I considered to be "relevant". Before you had read the text (I hope), I quickly removed the bold text from the quote and reworded it to be less aggressive. I have also added an explanation of my edit on this occassion -- something I should have done as the very first thing, and in a much more polite way.

About two weeks later, I decided to remove the insulting quote from my talk page. Especially as I had complained about personal attacks between you and Khajidha in the discussion, my quote casted an embarrassingly bad light on the otherwise very friendly atmosphere I'm trying to establish here. That was a good first step, I think, but I feel that it has not been enough.

I have noticed that you have not edited since this discussion, and that your last edit has been made one month ago to my talk page. This is worrying me, because I might have discouraged a well-intending user from editing, something which I had ironically been complaining about to you above. I hope that the sudden stop of editing from your IP address, 75.110.241.177, has only been caused by a change of IP address, or by registration of a username.

Today, I would like to invite you to give Wikipedia, a huge project that can only continue to exist because of contributions like yours, a second chance. Specifically, I sincerly hope that you would like to give me, personally, a second chance as well. I'm sorry for having been rude in our discussion, and I will honestly do my best to prevent something like this from happening ever again.

If you would like to come back, please take one of these cookies:

They're still warm while you're reading this. No matter when you're reading this. They'll be waiting here, they will not be archived, and it would make me happy to hear from you again whenever you see this message. I sadly can't reach you via e-mail by leaving a message on your talk page, but maybe you're still reading Wikipedia as 75.110.241.177, and maybe you'll be looking at my talk page one day again. When you do, please let me know, even if you choose to refuse my apology. I know that I have messed up. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on The Boy And The Beast

Hello,

I do apologize, I didn’t realize I had deleted important information by accident. I am the one who made the small changes in that article, however since I am very new to Wikipedia I accidentally destroyed some very important information. I will be much more careful in the future.

Thank you. Shadowrizer135 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowrizer135: Oh hey! Welcome to Wikipedia! -- If I understand correctly, this is about an edit about 1 month ago, which was helpful but also happened to remove an infobox. Please don't worry! Mistakes happen, and this might even have been caused by a technical issue. You have used the visual editor; maybe it has/had a bug. It has also been a "mobile edit"; I personally think that the visual editor is not really useful on a mobile phone. Trying to use it on my phone has also caused problems in the past; I am now directly editing the source code of the page instead. This is easier than it might sound!
Don't let the accident stop you; if anything goes wrong, it can be easily undone without any hassle. The version history of each article allows you and other editors to quickly undo any mistakes, and to have a closer look at all edits that happened in the past. This is how I was able to restore the good part of your edit, and if I missed something, feel free to re-add all your improvements.
I'll add a welcome box to your talk page, containing some links and cookies. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia - thank you for registering an account, and becoming part of this huge community. The amount of rules and guidelines might seem to be overwhelming at the beginning, but it all boils down to this: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. If there are any questions, feel free to ask me for help on my talk page whenever you like to. Alternatively, you might like to have a look at our wonderful Teahouse, where experienced editors are happily waiting for new editors to guide through the large world of Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, yes, I did use an iPad with the visual editing feature, that may have caused a problem with the source code. I have watched the movie and have partial knowledge of Japanese so I do believe my corrections were... well, correct. I appreciate you reverting the damage I caused, but may I be allowed to edit it again? Thank you for your help. Also, should I sign my edits or only on talk pages?Shadowrizer135 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowrizer135: You have never been forbidden from editing! I'm sorry if my message back then made it appear as if your contributions would be unwanted. Feel free to go ahead and edit whatever you like!
About the iPad, ah, that does at least have a large display. It might be less problematic than my small smartphone display. To avoid any possible problems, I personally would recommend using the "Edit source" button instead of the default "Edit" button. In your preferences, you can also make this the default, if you like to.
About signing edits, that's only a thing on talk pages; edits to articles should not be signed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, and I hope you have a fun day too! I’ll edit it on my computer this time in source code mode to make sure I don’t accidentally destroy it again! :) Shadowrizer135 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XECD-AM edits (XHECD-FM)

Yeah, that was an actual constructive edit there. He left a link to a logo image, so I uploaded it and put the information in the infobox where it belongs. Raymie (t • c) 02:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie: Hi Thank you -- but I have not reverted the edit only because of the image link. I have reverted it because it added this text to the article body:
Pagina web www.laromantica.com.mx y nuevo logo de año 2018 La Romántica 1170 am y 92.9 fm la música de tú corazón http://www.radiorama.mx/images/fotos/591_XHECD.png
Good faith, yes -- constructive in this form, no. Thank you very much for taking the time to actually fix it! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course. The editor doesn't know English and obviously he's not very familiar with infoboxes. Raymie (t • c) 04:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain me!

Hi @ToBeFree:,

Why you think that this edit is an unsourced? As per my view it is a pure vandalized edit by IP user. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siddiqsazzad001
You are probably more experienced in this area; I just saw an unsourced name change that somehow resembled the English word "Farting". I thought that this is rather unlikely, and had a quick look at the linked movie article to check if it was a useful correction, and it didn't seem to be one. Because I lack knowledge about Indian movies, I chose to use the "unsourced" revert button instead of the "vandalism" one. This adds an "uw-unsourced1" message to the user's talk page, which invites the user to re-add the information if they can prove it using a reliable source. The "uw-vandalism1" message would probably have been appropriate in this case as well. If you can be completely sure that an edit is vandalism, then the vandalism message is the best thing to use, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insult in the lede again

Partly copied from Talk:Digital_rights_management 14:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, in the IBM article, would you say IBM, International Business Systems, also called Intentionally Braindamaged Machinery? We don't add insults in ledes made up by snarky critics. DRM stands for what it stands for. Please revert your fake definition of the acronym. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note by ToBeFree: This seems to be about this edit. See page history and talk page at that time.

Sorry, clicked the wrong button and meant this to be on the article took. I'll copy there. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
@Objective3000: Hi I am unsure about this. Your IBM example does not seem to correctly portray the situation, as "Intentionally Braindamaged Machinery" would be libellously implying that IBM intentionally produces bad hardware. "Digital Rights Management" vs. "Digital Restrictions Management", however, are two viewpoints that both can not be factually disproven to be correctly describing DRM. Rights are being managed, or restrictions are being managed - that's subjective. One might even go as far as saying that "rights" is an equally biased term here, just as "restrictions" is. Both are not really neutral. Also, compared to the IBM example, the number of people and articles actually using the other term appears to be notable to me. Even if it is a factually wrong term (which I have not seen any proof about yet!), if it is very widespread, it might well be suitable for inclusion in the lead section of the article. Instead of completely deleting it and having a long-time edit war with other editors, it might be more productive to attempt to find a consensual solution, which could - my suggestion - be including the term in the lead section and appropriately explaining the context and reasoning behind it.
About me personally, I would prefer not to get deeply involved in this issue, I just stumbled upon the revert and decided to add a third, hopefully neutral opinion, as a thought-provoking impulse to an otherwise probably never ending conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your neutral opinion is not at all neutral and if you don't want to be involved, you probably should have used this talk page instead of entering an edit war. The snarky definition of DRM was created by the founder of an organization that is against copyright and every use of the term that I have found traces back to him. It’s simply an insult. OTOH, the correct definition is found in numerous patents. Insult terms are often mentioned in RS. But, we do not put AKA Crooked Hillary or AKA Angry Creamsicle in the Clinton or Trump articles because they are simply insults, not real names. Opponents often use nasty nicknames. I've deleted over 30 from the President's nicknames article. They certainly don't belong in the first sentence of an article. If we neeed to discuss this once again, I suggest reversion during discussion as per WP:BRD. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The founder of an organization that is against copyright" -- You might be referring, wrongly, to Richard Stallman? If so, I'd like to correct that the whole "free software" principle, and copyleft licenses like the one Wikipedia uses as a foundation for its existence as a free encyclopedia, are based and relying on copyright. Stating that someone is "against copyright" does not appear to be a factual analysis, and in this specific case, it is really objectively and verifiably wrong.
I also do not believe that using "restrictions" in place of "rights" is "simply an insult"; there are actually being restrictions applied by DRM. It can also be argued that DRM is a "rights management" -- why would any of both terms be "wrong" or "right", based on any other criterion than usage frequency in media? Frequently used terms can be biased just as well as non-frequently-used terms can be.
About BRD, please have a look at What BRD is not -- specifically, it is "never a reason for reverting".
When I wrote that I would prefer not to get deeply involved into this, I really meant it, and I won't protest if you revert my edit. If my attempt to find a peaceful compromise does not appear to solve the problem, please remove it. I'm just afraid that keeping on reverting might not lead to anything but a page protection, which would not necessarily preserve your own preferred version of the page. Without considering that there might be a "middle course" that everyone can be happy about, you two might still be edit-warring next year. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say I was quite correct about Stallman looking at the bankruptcies he has caused. Yes, he is in favor of free software, as am I when the author wishes it to be free. I’ve been giving away software for over a half century. But, he goes much farther. And yes, BRD is never a “reason” for deletion. But, it is a process that calls for discussion after reversion, not reinstating reverted text without discussion or edit-warring. While I thank you for trying to find a compromise, I do not see your suggestion as a middle course. We don’t even include derogatory terms in the first sentence in that article about a German with the toothbrush mustache. (Trying to avoid Godwin’s law.) We don’t put derogatory snarks or criticisms at the start of an article. On your suggestion that I revert, that would be edit-warring, which I never do. It would also violate 3RR. Thus, I again suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I respect your arguments and decision. I'm reverting my edit myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion has continued after that, it is available at Talk:Digital_rights_management. 14:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-19

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

  • The Wikimedia Commons mobile app has a new version. It is now easier to find nearby places that need pictures. It helps you with direct uploads and title and category suggestions. The app only works on Android phones. [24]

Problems

  • Advanced item The abuse filters had a problem with blocks where you had changed how long they last. It used the default length everywhere. This was in late April. Abuse filter users should make sure the right block length is used and change them if needed. This is only for filters where how long blocks last had been changed. [25]

Changes later this week

  • The advanced search function beta feature will be on all Wikimedia wikis. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist. [26]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 May. It will be on all wikis from 10 May (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 8 May 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 9 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Advanced item All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 16 May. Other wikis will switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. [27][28]

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

16:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:KatnissEverdeen: "nice add new message button"

I absolutely had to copy this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make it? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold! No, ToBeFree made it for me :) Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 14:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks! @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: You can easily add one to your own talk page, with any colors and images you like: Template:User new message large ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling?

Yes, I know I was trolling originally, but it's true, CCR was identifying as 'The Golliwogs' when they were younger. Also, I'm at school, so let me have fun, please!!!1!!!!!1!!11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlockvet (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shlockvet: Welcome to Wikipedia. It makes me happy to see that you're having fun, and it's nice that you have created an account. Unfortunately, your edits have not been helpful so far. We're not trying to ruin your fun! Instead of trolling, here's something that might be fun and useful at the same time: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure -- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you have proof for the "Golliwogs" name, please add a link to a reliable source when making your edit. Write it in well-written, readable English, check twice for spelling errors, and add a reliable link - that would be perfect! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shlockvet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned on 17:53, 10 May 2018 by Widr with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (vandalism). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan McDermott Article

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop changing solid facts on the Eoghan McDermott page. It is a subject very close to my heart and Eoghan himself has confirmed that he is, indeed, married, British and 40. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmonccccmongogo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmonccccmongogo: Add a reliable source please, especially when editing biographies of living persons. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmonccccmongogo: Additional note: Do you really believe this edit to be constructive and helpful? Or this one? Or this one? Maybe this one? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for being one step ahead of me on reverting vandalism! Safety Cap (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Safety Cap: Oh hey, thank you very much! You seem to be interested in using recent change patrolling tools, having tried out IGLOO, having been granted rollback and using Twinkle a lot. Have you tried Huggle yet? You seem to meet all requirements needed to use it, and it might have changed a lot since the last time you gave it a try! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I'll have to check it out again — Safety Cap (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Alte Brücke (Frankfurt)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Alte Brücke (Frankfurt), ToBeFree!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Congratulations on this translation. Please see the talk page on how to attribute the original German version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Cwmhiraeth: Hey, thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathaniel_Bright_Emerson&diff=840938757&oldid=840934643&diffmode=source

For my talk page archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LAST TEST BEFORE RELEASE

Please ignore the following warnings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

(removed last tests for the new Huggle config on en.wikipedia) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree What are you doing exactly? The excessive warnings are messing with huggle. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrissymad: Alright, alright. I think the new config can go live without further tests. It's been a month now.
More information can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Huggle/Config.yaml ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For successfully beta testing and rolling out a comprehensive configuration for Huggle that will hopefully have a positive impact on the RC Patrollers on the project. Thanks for all the work you put in to make it happen! OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Diff 841072943/prev, which future readers might remember as "the day my Huggle warning list has suddenly completely changed." ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OhKayeSierra: Thank you very much! The testing phase was a nice experience, and making the changes go live felt awesome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removing my edits

What's wrong with my edits, it's only the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa789 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_Opara&diff=prev&oldid=841211372&diffmode=source
If you really wonder why this kind of edits is not appreciated on Wikipedia, please have a look at the following pages:
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Hello, ToBeFree! I'm just here to thank you for all your help with new editors, and also to say that I'm borrowing some of your wiki mark-up. I hope you don't mind! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Javert2113, thank you very much for the beer! :D Nice to meet you again. I think some days ago, we "saw" each other in a version history and greeted each other with a "Thanks". That was funny; it reminded me of what bus/taxi drivers do when they see each other on the street. About the markup, take whatever you like! It makes me proud and happy to see it being reused. Especially the new message button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I wanted to thank you for your efforts on that page, too, fellow bus/taxi driver! And I'll be sure to help myself to a lot of the mark-up, then! Thanks again for doing the awesome stuff you do! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.

What am I doing wrong on our page? Why is a teacher updating a page for the high school they work at a bad thing? Does Wikpedia not want current information on a page? Who else knows more about the school they work at than a teacher there? I haven't written anything thats not directly cited. All are facts. Help me understand how any of this is a conflict of interest? CflemLCHS (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, it's not that we don't want current information, it's just that we fear you may have a conflict of interest: per WP:COI, given your employment status, it is possible that you're (a) being paid to make these edits; (b) receiving some sort of compensation, pecuniary aside, to edit; (c) subject to such a relationship that your editing may or might appear to have some sort of bias or otherwise be untoward; (d) adding promotional or otherwise unencyclopedic content to the page; or (e) being coerced by some means or another to make your edits to the page. While we appreciate your edits, noting that Lakeview Centennial received several Academic Distinctions, for example, in the past several years is more something for the local newspaper to report, not an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? (I will not mention the primary sourcing issue, though that is an issue.)
Likewise, we don't mind uncontroversial edits, such as removing vandalism, per WP:COIU; but the general matter is that Wikipedia is a volunteer effort by unbiased editors editing pages where they don't have conflicts of interest: imagine if I'm the paid Wikipedia editor of Company X, and I edited Wikipedia's page on Company X. I could say that Company X makes the best widgets in the world, and Company Y makes horrible, shoddy ones that break on the first use. With Wikipedia's stature on the Internet, as one of the most-viewed sites in the world, the whole world could read that, even if I'm lying, using terrible sources, or causing a ruckus with other editors. All those situations should be avoided, right?
The gist of it is this: the COI rule is to guard against the appearance of impropriety on Wikipedia articles, by having editors declare their actual conflicts of interest on talk pages and/or in edit summaries. That's it. I hope that clarifies matters for you. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Hehe, Javert2113 was a little faster than me and has nicely summarized this. I'll send my drafted answer as well, anyway) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CflemLCHS. We do value your contributions, especially when they're updating outdated articles that contained wrong information. That itself is not a problem, it is a welcome help!
It can, however, be unintendedly problematic when these contributions are directly made to the article by someone closely affiliated with the article subject. In this case, you as a teacher seem to be happy about your job. You receive money for teaching at this school -- not necessarily directly from the school itself, but definitely for working there.
Please note that we do assume good faith for all of your edits. Nobody thinks that you'd be doing this in a malicious way; we understand that you are a friendly person just trying to help, and that is normally a very good thing. However, to quote the Conflict Of Interest (COI) guideline, editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. This sentence summarizes the whole "conflict" nicely, I think.
In this specific case, what I noticed is that:
  • You have removed an information box that was meant to neutrally indicate a possible conflict of interest. This information box had been added by Plandu, another Wikipedia editor. They have not undone your contributions in any way, they just tried to make clear that the article needs to be checked for statements that are not neutral (see WP:NPOV) and that might appear to be promotional (see WP:PROMO) or not adhering to our external links guideline (see WP:EL).
  • You have added external links and what appears to be promotional content to the article, especially with this edit: Diff 841200506/prev
  • You appear to have decided, yourself, that an issue described as "the article reads like an advertisement" has been solved by your edits and have removed the respective imformation template from the article.
These edits are unlikely to be considered neutral and objective by other readers; specifically, the neutrality has been questioned by Plandu and me personally.
Fortunately, there is an easy way to solve the problem: Simply suggest your corrections on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to verify the neutrality and verifiability (see WP:V) of the edits, before adding them to the live article.
If you have any questions left, feel free to ask them. A good place to ask for help is the Help desk, and the Teahouse. Experienced, friendly mentors are frequently having a look at these pages, and they are happy to help guiding new editors whenever there's any problem, anything unclear or any question about editing articles on Wikipedia.
I hope this helps! Thank you for taking the time to read it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are being a tad overzealous here. This is just a high school page. Thats it. Nothing posted anywhere is wrong or even written in a way that would be considered biased. All facts. Directly from the webpage. My registering that username I wanted to be transparent that I was updating it.. but based upon all of these suggestions I should have just registered an ambiguous name and made the edits. I deleted the flag because it was over 4 years old. All of this is too bad - makes it very hard to have accurate information out there. After talking to the principal, we are just gonna leave it alone... one more out of date page I guess... I really don't want to get attacked every time I try to update the page. I was pretty excited about fixing it. oh well... count me out. CflemLCHS (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CflemLCHS:
Hm.
The username really is not the problem here, and I personally am grateful for the clear indication of a conflict of interest. Not having such a clear username would just have caused more confusion achieving the same result in the end.
What you "should have", and what anyone else affiliated with the school should do, is simply suggesting the changes on the article's talk page. That is not considerably harder to do than implementing the changes yourself, and it allows implementing all your good contributions without copying the promotional/problematic parts. I would have believed that to be a solution both useful to the school and the encyclopedia.
Sorry to see you go. When telling someone else about this issue, I recommend giving them a link to the talk page of the article, where I will add links to our discussion here. You can use the following link to easily show the situation to someone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lakeview_Centennial_High_School#Conflict_of_Interest
Thank you for your time, and sorry for the disappointment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. They are really not going to like me. That article is a promotional mess. It won't be long. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: :D -- That's exactly what this article has needed for a long time! Thank you very much; I was unsure where to start with cleanup, even. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a long way from done.
  1. NCES stats need updated and other statistical sources removed.
  2. Athletics info needs to be consolidated and independently sourced to the UIL or journalistic sources.
  3. The stuff on all the academies needs drastic trimming.
I'm sure there's more. Any help is appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half-jokingly asking for forgiveness, instead of permission

I just wanted to apologize for talk-page stalking you. I probably should have asked your permission before doing so, but in my haste to respond, well, it slipped my mind. I hope you'll forgive me and we can resume being friends again; otherwise, I harbor no ill-will if you should choose to not do so. (By the way, if I didn't help, I'll take my whippings.)

Addendum: I don't mean to sound cheeky, but would you allow me to TPS in the future? Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Javert2113: Haha, that was the best surprise so far. I always wanted to have a talk page stalker! You definitely deserve a beer as well. :D ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, official sanction! (I'll take the laughter as a "yes".) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Got your email. I wish I knew how to access that, but thanks for the link; I'll be saving that. Now, if you could only help me figure out why my userboxes keep getting pushed to the right... Thanks for your help! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (Whoops, messed up earlier.) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Javert2113: That has confused me a lot for a long time, until I saw someone doing it with a simple invisible table. It was a user who had their page full of userboxes, and they needed the table to make them fit on the page. I stole the idea. Hope you like it too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant; thanks! I love it! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-20

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

  • Dynamic maps are now available on most Wikipedias. Labels on maps can also be in different languages.
  • The new Advanced Search interface is now available as a Beta Feature on all wikis. This makes it easier to learn about and to use many of the powerful options in our search. Feedback is appreciated. [29]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 May. It will be on all wikis from 17 May (calendar).

Meetings

  • 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 16 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • In the mobile view, warnings for when something is wrong with a page are not as clear as they should be. The developers are working on this. You can give feedback and suggestions.
  • The developers are working on making the Wikipedia Android app available in more languages. You can give feedback, suggestions and help test it. Read more on mediawiki.org [30]

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

22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Silvana De Mari biography

Hello, I've just added a list of Countries where this writer was translated. It's been removed(!). I've also edited a translation of a statement she made which had been wrongly translated form Italin to English. One second after that, I've been sent this message: 

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Silvana De Mari seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So must I assume that a list of Countries and a correct translation are now considered 'opinions'???!!! And you claim to be neutral???!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.122.22‎ (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please excuse my mistake, I was irritated by the other edits you had made to the page. You had replaced "homosexuality" with "anal sex", changed the following sentence:
  • "[...] defined by the President of the Order of Medical Doctors as not to be based on facts or scientific evidence. The disciplinary panel is in the process of evaluating whether De Mari's actions will result in any disciplinary measure"
to
  • "not matching what Medicine thinks today",
and also, this edit confused me.
Now that I have a look at the page again, this sentence here does seem to be a problem that should be changed soon:
  • Alongside her fantasy production, she's also contributed to the italian academic debate o this literary genre through her activity as essayist and speaker.
Besides the typographical error, this sentence has no references, which is especially problematic in a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP).
I had, fortunately, noticed my mistake relatively quickly and undid my reversion: Diff 841393483/841393917
I had also already added a correction of my wrong message to your talk page: Diff 841394267/841393488
...so I hope that there is no reason left to be angry. I will, however, remove the unsourced sentence for now -- feel free to re-add it with a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry mistake

sorrry mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.174.195 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinent

Hector Vinent is a two time Olympic Champion and two time World Champion. There are only three boxers with three olympic gold medals (Papp, Stevenson, Savon). Just a step behind them is Vinent. So you can say he is one of most succesfull amateur boxers in history. You do not need any citations. You just have to take a look at his medals and have basic knowledge about amateur boxing. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlingsiki1986 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Battlingsiki1986! This is a pretty bold statement:
Best knowing for its skill and speed he is one of most succesfull amateur boxers in history.
(assuming you mean "best known") - You are probably very experienced in that area, and for you, it is absolutely clear that this information is correct. Others, especially those without any knowledge about boxing, might see that differently. He might have fans who consider him to be "one of the most successful amateur boxers" - but he might also have enviers, and some fans of other boxers might not consider him to be so famous. To avoid wrong statements in biographies of living people, we have a very strict policy that requires these statements to be reliably sourced, verifiable for anyone.
But, Battlingsiki1986, this is probably not a problem! If it is so clear and well-known that he is one of the most successful amateur boxers, then you'll easily find a reliable source to add with that sentence. Just take these extra 10 seconds and add a link to a news article that explicitly says that he's one of the most successful amateur boxers. Easy as that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits to Oscar Murillo (artist)

Heading added by me ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree, I made the change in request of Oscar Murillo, He wants to remove the picture he currently has in his Wikipedia Page, also remove the name of his spouse, as he is not currently with her any more. I would like to keep the changes that I had made. how do I support them if the source is the person himself? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donator25 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Donator25! Nice to meet you.
One thing I need to ask first -- you wrote that you are acting "in request of" the article subject. This is okay, but please note that the terms of service of Wikipedia require that:

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
  • a statement on your user page,
  • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.
— Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
If you are not receiving any form of compensation for your edits, you are not required, but encouraged, to clarify any affiliation to the subject, nevertheless.
If the name of his former spouse is correct, and the statements in the article are factual and encyclopedic, the mention of the previous relationship will probably not be removed on request. However, the article can (and should!) be improved to reflect the current situation. Your help is very appreciated! However, please do not edit the article directly; instead, please make all suggestions on the article's talk page. Experienced editors can then implement all the edits considered to be factual and neutral; they can improve syntactical details and ask for clarification if something is unclear.
In a nutshell: We would love to see your improvements, and when you add them on the article's talk page, we'll do our best to implement them in a way that makes everyone happy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint by Kelseykukui about "vandalism" by Melcous

Kelseykukui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Melcous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Personally attacking section heading reworded ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My goal on the Griffin Guess page is to keep the exist information that has been edited by many since 2009 up in operating condition. However, this one user keeps vandalizing the page outright and I'm looking to experienced users to help block or band this user from obvious vandalism. Any assistance would be great. Sorry for creating issue specific to the page edit, layout format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseykukui (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Actually they are removing the promotional material from the page and keeping it in line with our policy on neutrality. However I will ask, what is your connection to Griffin Guess? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelseykukui: Thank you for asking me for help. I'm sorry to probably disappoint you, but I had created the COI noticeboard entry about this article, and I did that because:
  • the article strongly needed to be cleaned up, and
  • you, Kelseykukui, might need to avoid further direct editing of the article.
Also, please do not attack other editors, especially not on my talk page. I might write a longer answer later, but for now, the above comment by RickinBaltimore appears to be summarizing the situation nicely (thanks! ). Your response to their question should probably be written on your own talk page, to make others aware of the connection, if there is one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note by ToBeFree: 21:46, 16 May 2018 Ponyo (talk | contribs) blocked Kelseykukui (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (CheckUser block): CU  Confirmed to User:Evensteven200.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks RickinBaltimore and ToBeFree - I've been away from the computer for a couple of days so missed most of this mess. Appreciate your calm heads in this and your work in general. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

That was not me who made the edits. It was someone else using my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.201.20 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Don't worry. You're probably using a dynamic IP address, and the previous user of that address maybe did something weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my talk page archive. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_McKenzie&diff=842026127&oldid=842025966&diffmode=source

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enuma Elis

Thanks for the advice - I've greatly trunctated the addition it and moved the rest to talk page.

Hope that is ok. 5.198.10.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 5.198.10.236, thank you very much!
I'll have a closer look at the article, maybe I can help with the issues you've pointed out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-21

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

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 May. It will be on all wikis from 24 May (calendar).

Meetings

  • 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 23 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • It could become easier to reference different pages of a book in an article. You can give feedback. The last day for feedback is 27 May.

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

17:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Murillo Art Wikipedia Page

Hi, I just contacting you to help me out with a modification into a Wikipedia Living Person Biography, In the current status of this personal appears as he's still married to Angelica Fernandes, unfortunately, that's no true, so I will request to remove this from the Oscar Murillos page, as is transgressing the Data Protection Act principle 4.

To comply with these provisions you should:

take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of any personal data you obtain; ensure that the source of any personal data is clear; carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of information; and consider whether it is necessary to update the information.


thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donator25 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donator25: Hi again
I'll have a look, thank you for pointing out these problems! Wrong information in a biography of a living person definitely needs to be removed; it just becomes harder to fix than usual if that information is reliably sourced and "just" outdated.
Please note that Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers, and that I personally have not written the content you're complaining about. I'll do my best to help, but please make sure that your messages, whether to me or any other editors, do not carry any implication of legal threats (see WP:NLT). Any legal complaints that you wish to enforce, e.g. about the Data Protection Act, must be made using the information provided on the following two pages:
Often, volunteers will help to remove the content before any legal action would even be able to take place. However, if you ever feel that this did not solve the problem, please have a look at the pages above.
I'll now remove the information you're requesting to be removed, but someone else might complain and restore it. You will be able to verify this in the "edit history" of the article. If that happens, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead of considering taking legal action against individual people who are just trying to find an acceptable solution for everyone. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Donator25: Update: Sorry, but could you please point out the exact statement in the current version of the article that you consider to be wrong? I can't find anything about marriage, I can't find the name "Angelica Fernandes"... And nobody has changed the article since my edits! Are you sure that you want something to be removed from the article? Which part? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Murillo (Artist)

If you write Oscar Murillo in the google search the first that comes out to your browser is a Wikipedia screen where said that Oscar Murillo's wife is Angelica Fernandes. that is the wrong information. He is no longer married to that person, that is what is wrong in his information.

File:Screenoscar.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donator25 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donator25: Thank you, now I see what you mean. This might be one of two possible problems, I guess:
  • That information might not actually be from Wikipedia/Wikidata, see also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15698294, and might rather have been added by someone else, either to Google's information box directly, or on another website not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation,
  • or: That information is outdated and stored in a cache that needs to be cleared. Google, as far as I know, provides an option to report wrong information in that box. If they don't, or if they don't react, please check Google's procedures about this kind of issues, maybe about the Data Protection Act or something like that.
If anyone tells you to "correct this issue on Wikipedia instead", please make clear to them that Wikipedia is up-to-date and does not contain this information anymore. Anyone telling you different appears to be wrong.
Hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Oldmeadow

Thanks for your message on my talk page. i have never met Harry Oldmeadow nor do i have any interest in promoting him. I am just trying to improve his wikipedia page. Thanks. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's fine. Please do also have a look at the other links and information added to your talk page by the other editors, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(note: The following message has been added, maybe coincidentally with the right indentation, as result of an edit conflict. It has been written before my answer had appeared. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Pursuant to the aforementioned facts, I hope you won't mind if I delete your remarks from my talk page. Many thanks and best wishes. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, no need to keep it there. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Huggle code signing: tracking section

This section of my talk page will later be archived and is only meant to document Phabricator task T105560, the related feature request, and its position in the timeline of my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
User talk:Marlenekoenig‎. Thank you for the patience working on that page. It's important to make sure that we are sensitive to the concerns of BLPs. Sadads (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadads: Oh, this is a refreshing gesture, thank you very much! I'm going to drink that cup of tea now, and will be back in about half an hour to see if the world has ended in the meantime. Can't hurt to take a break right now; I'll Xsign the remaining lines afterwards. Thank you for all your work as well! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping up moral is super important -- we are in our volunteer capacities :P I do want to comment a bit on the style of some of your comments. I realize that we have a lot of written up help pages and policies (and as you can see I am also referring to these venues); however, I make sure to sandwich these links within some human-written, emphathetic language -- I have heard from a number of folks who have had bad Wikipedia communications experiences, because they thought that they were "just being referred to a wall of text or links" and not being given a more human interaction. Just a thought :D Otherwise though, I really appreciate your contribution to this conversation, Sadads (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - yes, that's a good point. I will explicitly link to the relevant section headings next time, and I'll cite the information the user is specifically asking for. In this case, I should have quoted the e-mail address, just like you did afterwards. In the moment you wrote it, I noticed that it was basically missing from my comments. I could also have written a more precise answer to the question for a phone number, instead of just linking to a page which lists an e-mail address as the preferred way of contact. About walls of text, I could use the Manual of Style as an impression for myself to be able to understand what a newcomer might feel like when being linked to a somewhat "smaller" FAQ page. Thanks again ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, indeed. For how well we document the world, we are terrible at making the documentation of our own community inaccessible. Sadads (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-22

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

  • You can now use global preferences on most wikis. This means you can set preferences for all wikis at the same time. Before this you had to change them on each individual wiki. Global preferences will come to the Wikipedias later this week. [31][32]
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked. [33]
  • Wikidata now supports lexicographical data. This helps describe words.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups. [34]
  • Some rare invisible Unicode characters have recently been banned from page titles. This includes soft hyphens (U+00AD) and left-to-right (U+2066) and right-to-left (U+2067) isolate markers. Existing pages with these characters will soon be moved by a script. [35]
  • Advanced item There's a new Wikimedia Foundation team to support the Wikimedia technical communities. It's called the Technical Engagement team. Most of the team members did similar work in other teams before this. [36]

Problems

  • Some translatable pages are showing old translations instead of latest ones. The cause of this issue has been fixed. We will update all pages automatically to show the latest translations. [37]

Changes later this week

  • There will be a new special page named PasswordPolicies. This page gives information about the password rules for each user group on that wiki. [38]
  • A new way to see moved paragraphs in diffs is coming to most wikis. This is to make it easier to find the moved paragraphs and the changes in them. [39]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 May. It will be on all wikis from 31 May (calendar).
  • Advanced item Wikis can enable Citoid to provide automatic reference look-up in the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. This is complex. The tool will now disable itself if the configuration isn't correct. It has warned about this in the JavaScript console since February. Check that your wiki is configured correctly. You can ask for help if you need it. [40]

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 29 May 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 30 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Content Translation drafts which have not been updated in over a year will be removed. This allows other users to translate those articles. [41]
  • A survey is collecting information on what users think about how Wikimedia wiki pages are loaded. This information could be used in future development. [42]
  • Advanced item Some wikis will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 30 May and 13 June. Wikis with fewer than 100 linter issues in the main namespace in all high-priority linter categories will switch. This includes Wikidata. Tidy will probably be removed on all wikis in the first week of July. [43][44]

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

12:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About Me: Billy Bob

My Name Is Billy Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvmsfca (talk • contribs) 13:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Welcome to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

This edit should be marked as vandalism, not edit tests. It's a clear case. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's you, hi! And yes, you're probably correct. I often label edits as "test edits" even if they could also be called "vandalism" -- especially if the user doesn't have a red warning on their page yet. This might be my personal way of trying to avoid the wrong kind of mistakes.
I think that labelling vandalism as "test edits" is rarely problematic, because:
  • If it's actually a test edit, someone experimenting with Wikipedia might decide to make more constructive edits the next time, and
  • If it's vandalism, the vandal gets a relatively appropriate warning that has a softer wording than the uw-vandalism series.
Both doesn't seem to be wrong to me, also noting that there is no uw-test4 template and uw-vandalism4 is used as last warning instead anyway.
Let's compare the two warning template texts:
uw-test1 vs uw-vandalism1:
Information icon Hello, I'm ToBeFree. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
Information icon Hello, I'm ToBeFree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.
uw-test2 vs uw-vandalism2:
Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
uw-test3 vs uw-vandalism3:
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
uw-vandalism4:
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
Some differences and similarities that I notice when comparing them directly to each other:
  • Uw-test1 contains a link to my talk page instead of the help desk.
  • Uw-vandalism1 contains a link to the sandbox, leaving open the possibility of a test edit.
  • Uw-test2 does not mention the word "vandalism" yet; it does not yet explicitly call the edits "unconstructive".
  • Uw-test2 takes into account that the user might have wanted to undo their edit afterwards.
  • Uw-test2 does not yet threaten the user with a block.
  • Uw-test3 uses bold text for the blocking warning, which interestingly is a feature that should probably be added to uw-vandalism3 as well.
  • Uw-test3 still mentions the sandbox as a place for experiments.
  • Uw-test4 is a redirect to uw-vandalism4.
Huggle uses an empty summary for reverting vandalism with the Q key, currently ignoring the configuration which should label these edits as "nonconstructive edits". Using "test edits" with a link to the sandbox instead doesn't seem to be bad to me, although it might look strange when reverting obviously malicious cases of repeated vandalism.
I just noticed that you have already sent the following two replies before I had finished writing. Cheeky! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually IMO being a dick is better than being nice (for dealing with vandalism only), so I personally choose pressing Q, it's just more convenient. The level 3 of both templates are way too different. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to sign your message my typing four tildes (~~~~) XD Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message by 83.53.107.224

you make a mistake because i want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.107.224 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have had a look at your contributions again, specifically at the one I have reverted. You had added "meh" in the middle of a sentence without any apparent reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgeon

Hi, TBF - I almost did the same thing you did re: the revert at sturgeon but I stopped to check for any IUCN updates, and there it was - so I reverted your revert. Anyway, thank you for looking out for our articles. Atsme📞📧 14:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Hi, thank you! You are correct. The edit had changed information that appeared to be quoted from a 2004 book source, and a link "last retrieved 11 November 2013". I found it very unlikely that this book has been magically changed, but the link actually points to updated information. I have now removed the book link and updated the retrieval date. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✅ Atsme📞📧 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request by Kashmiri1950

a page named Higher Secondary School Certificate is already on Wikipedia. There is no need for this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri1950 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kashmiri1950, thank you very much for the explanation.
There is a complex set of rules and guidelines about deletion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
Because it is so complex, we also have a short help page about this topic, which I had given you a link to. I am happy to see that you have read that page, and that you have now decided to request a "speedy deletion". I am unsure, however, if the page really meets one of the very strict criteria for speedy deletion. It is from 2004! That's so long ago, back then even unregistered users had been able to create pages. Most Wikipedians probably don't even know that it has ever been like this. This one stayed until today, and before we delete it, we should have a regular "deletion discussion" about it.
Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Higher_Secondary_Examination
I hope I could help you by creating this deletion discussion. It will last for about 7 days - if it is a very clear case, it might be closed earlier though. Experienced editors will have a closer look at the page and your deletion argument. They will explain why the page should actually be deleted, or why it should not be deleted. Let's see what happens! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

I deleted it because it said how he did not like Donald Trump. When he in fact does like Donald Trump. Thats why Donald Trump endorsed him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty State Of Jefferson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Liberty State Of Jefferson: Hey, thank you for replying.
I am unsure if the edit is really constructive in exactly this way, because it removes sourced statements from the article. Especially if someone else than me also decides to undo it again, it would be useful if you could add a detailled explanation, preferably with links to reliable sources, supporting your opinion. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 16:37, 3 June 2018 NeilN (talk | contribs) blocked Liberty State Of Jefferson (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)

httpd.conf

I suppose I could request deletion, but do you have anything to say there? If not, that would be bureaucracy for its own sake. Redirects do not destroy any content. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Now that you mention bureaucracy: Yes, a Proposed deletion might have been the way to go here; it is specifically meant for uncontroversial cases. I have started a deletion discussion already, hoping to help you -- we need to wait for the discussion to end instead. Maybe that happens quickly, maybe that takes a week. If it is as uncontroversial as you say, then it probably won't cause a lengthy discussion and might be closed early. Waiting a few days for other users to comment on the redirection won't be a problem after all the years the article has existed, I hope. Sorry for the unnecessary bureaucratic measures. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (forget that, I have just seen and read Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_that_replace_previous_articles) Sorry, I was just trying to help. I have closed the AfD discussion and will restore your proposed redirect. Have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Month

Wikipedian of the Month
Reverting vandalism on some of my watchlist pages during May with Huggle. Iggy (Swan) 10:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love how this icon coincidentally shows "May" as well. Thank you very much, Iggy the Swan, this is a cool award idea and it makes me proud to receive it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new editor at Human migration article

Can you possibly deal with that MOS issue at human migration? I've reached out to them but am not sure if they are going to self-revert. I don't want to hit 3RR problems because I already reverted that new editor twice when they were an IP. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well I'll be darned... they self-reverted. So disregard my previous message, then. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RA0808! I was already afraid someone might later complain about the 3RR; I think that you are right, and waiting a bit for another editor to have a look can't really hurt with this kind of good-faith edit. I'll have a closer look. If I could decide, the statement would simply be moved to the article's talk page, hopefully making everyone happy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: lol that's the best outcome. Waiting often pays out. Thank you for all your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About reliable sources

Message 1

Section heading changed (was: raw external URL) by ToBeFree, 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

here's the source, and i posted it in my edit: https://storywrite.com/story/7598601-what-would-franz-kafka-say-if-you-knock-on-his-toilet-door--by-sexy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.167.105 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message 2

here's the source and i already posted it, didn't you see it? https://storywrite.com/story/7598601-what-would-franz-kafka-say-if-you-knock-on-his-toilet-door--by-sexy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.167.105 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi
It's not just about providing any "source". The important part is to provide a reliable source. Neither the website nor the specific article appear to be reliable in any way to me. The website appears to be publishing unverified submissions by random users, and the text quality of the specific article is horrendous. All-lowercase text, multiple consecutive spaces, lack of punctuation and proper spacing, just to name a few issues. The article has been submitted by an anonymous user named "sexy". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating Wikipedia rules

I am contacting you in regard to your contributions on Bastyr University. Neutrality. One word. Additionally, you are obviously are using this platform to slander an institution and also to advance the motives of Britt Helmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGND (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit close to WP:NLT. Any more of this any you risk getting blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PGND.
I have no bias against or in favor of that university -- today, I have read about it the first time. Adding external links to the body of an article and removing entire criticism sections that all appear to have references is an unusual action, especially in an article that is marked with the following template:
However, I have undone my edit now, because I am not entirely sure what to do here. You can verify this at the article's history, specifically the following contribution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bastyr_University&diff=prev&oldid=844409431&diffmode=source
An experienced editor has then disagreed with me and you, and has reverted my undo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bastyr_University&diff=next&oldid=844409431&diffmode=source
Please contact Alexbrn if you think that this has been an error. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a second, old sport...

I could use a hand with this Draft I'm writing up. I'm not really sure if the subjects pass WP:GNG such to warrant their own article, and, admittedly, I'm somewhat wary of running afoul of the administrators, given that an article about the subjects was deleted back in 2009.

Here's the article: User:Javert2113/sandbox/Katie and Eilish Holton.

Anyway, I'd like your opinion: here, if that suits you; on my talk page, if you want; on the talk page for the draft page, if it seems most judicious. Thank you for your time, TBF. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: granted, this is somewhat unfinished. Sorry about that. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Javert2113: Hey!
I'm not the most competent person in regards to deletion criteria, I'm afraid. However, I tried to find at least one *newspaper* article on news.google.com with their name in the title, and sadly failed. On the other hand, there seem to be many medical publications mentioning them, linked by you.
The original article has been speedily deleted with the reason "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion"; a more detailled explanation about this rule appears to be here: Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance
2009... There's a "submit draft for review" button, I'd click it. Can't hurt. I personally can confirm that the article is interesting, and it made me read more about the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thanks! I think I'll hack at the draft a bit more later; I think I need an infobox, at least, and we'll see what happens afterwards. Thanks again! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, I wish you good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-23

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

  • The MonoBook skin has been optimised for mobile devices. It now looks different. [45]
  • Planet Wikimedia collects blogs about Wikimedia. It will now use the Rawdog feed aggregator to do this instead of Planet. [46][47]
  • Redirect links in Special:WhatLinksHere now link to the original page and not the target page. This was done earlier and changed the used messages on some pages. This was a problem for wikis that customized the message. A new change fixed this by using the old messages with one more parameter for customization. Wikis that already changed their customized messages will have to move the customization back again. [48]

Problems

  • You will not be able to edit some wikis between 06:00 and 06:30 UTC on 13 June. You can see if your wiki is one of them.
  • MassMessage did not work 24–28 May. This is also why last week's Tech News was late. [49]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 June. It will be on all wikis from 7 June (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 5 June 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 6 June 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.

21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical note: Liberty State Of Jefferson

This is currently just a note for myself. It is my first answer to an unblocking request.

User_talk:Liberty_State_Of_Jefferson#Hello_again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty_State_Of_Jefferson&oldid=844765586

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty_State_Of_Jefferson&oldid=845435847
Additional note: No, this is not the kind of non-admin response to an unblocking request that caused Oshwah to get considerable opposal at his RfA, and I have known about and considered this before sending the message. It was an attempt to help an user who I had originally welcomed to this encyclopedia, and it has nothing to do with "closure" of any kind. I believe that this very specific message was worth an attempt, but did not succeed. I do not believe that the message has negatively influenced the outcome of the situation; it can rather be compared with a lifebelt that has been completely ignored by the drowning person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVG text rendered incorrectly despite using officially supported fonts

Copied from commons:Commons:Graphics_village_pump#SVG_text_rendered_incorrectly_despite_using_officially_supported_fonts ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

meta:SVG fonts explicitly mentions DejaVu Sans and Liberation Sans. Also, Wikimedia pages themselves use the "Linux Libertine" font for section headings. The heading of this section is rendered in Linux Libertine!

I have created four SVGs containing text in Inkscape. The text should be easily editable using a text editor, the file should stay PD-ineligible, and the file size should not increase too much. For these three reasons, I do not want the text to be replaced by paths. Instead, I would like to use a font that allows correct rendering of thumbnails. I tried the three fonts mentioned above and failed.

The four SVGs: File:Smartscreen-warning-1.svg, File:Smartscreen-warning-1-arrow.svg, File:Smartscreen-warning-2.svg, File:Smartscreen-warning-2-arrow.svg

The text in these images has characters which overlap each other for no apparent reason. Instead of a normal text flow, characters are incorrectly moved to the left/right, causing them to stick together visually. It almost looks as if these characters are stored in the SVG one-by-one, each with a specific (wrong) position. This, however, does not actually seem to be the case, as opening the SVG with a text editor shows.

I tried searching the village pump archive and the Help:SVG page, but I might have overlooked something. If the issue is known, I would be happy about someone pointing me to a relevant FAQ entry or previously solved case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The "more info" text has a "text-decoration: underline;" CSS attribute, which is rendered correctly in Firefox when opening the SVG. The MediaWiki thumbnail renderer, however, appears to completely ignore it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've run into the librsvg small font-size quantization bug: Phab:T36947. Small font escapement and baseline placement have problems. For example, one of your files (File:Smartscreen-warning-2-arrow.svg) uses font sizes of 2.82222223px, 4.23333311px, 6.3499999px, 10.58333302px, 16.93333244px. That's small enough to tickle the bug.
For font-families, the list of supported fonts is not always right. I think your fonts can be found by librsvg, but they may not be found by other user agents (such as my browser). In any event, the font-family should include a generic font such as serif, sans-serif, or monospace.
The coordinate system used in the diagram is contorted (viewBox="0 0 132.29166 66.145833", translate(0,-230.85417)).
See also commons:Help:SVG, commons:Commons:Commons SVG Checker.
Glrx (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Glrx, this is amazing. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all these points; I would probably never have found out!
I'm copying this to my talk page on en.wikipedia to remind myself of fixing these issues as soon as I can. The contorted coordinate system is a really strange thing. I was already surprised that Inkscape's SVG coordinate system seems to begin at the bottom left, but it made sense to me (mathematical x-y-coordinate systems do look like that). I have no idea where the crazy value of "-230.85417" comes from, and I will have a look at SVG manuals to learn what this "translate" attribute does. I'll inspect the source code and do a lot of cleanup there. The phabricator bug is also very nice to know. About the font-families, strange, I would have expected Inkscape to do that sort of thing automatically, at least for the very basic "serif" or "sans-serif" or "monospace" fallback. I wasn't aware that this is likely missing from all SVGs I have ever created!
The Commons SVG checker seems to be an awesome tool and just what I have been looking for, too. Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Dorado World Tour

Thank for telling me this. In the future, I will make sure to not happen anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decemberboyl (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Decemberboyl, thank you very much -- to easily add a link and re-add your content, you can click the "undo" link on my contribution, adding a source before saving the undo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Dorado_World_Tour&diff=next&oldid=845009474&diffmode=source Feel free to ask if there are any questions left! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome

Thank you for your welcome on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mech1949 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mech1949: You're welcome, and thank you for all the new articles and contributions! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You removed a link I provided for Automotive battery. This link directs to an informative web page about how to jump start a car flat battery and contains a lot of important information I believe can help many people. Why did you remove it? I think it's a mistake. Please put it back. Thank youBeitMeir (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about this edit, 2018-06-11, 11:43, to Automotive battery. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BeitMeir!
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but here's what I noticed about the link:
  • It is an external inline link in the body of the article, see Wikipedia:External links
  • It is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
  • Even if it was a reliable source, using it in exactly this way would not be an improvement to the encyclopedic article, see Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO (Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook)
  • This specific website appears to be of very low quality. It has been created using a "homepage creator" for beginners and appears to be an advertisement for one specific product with an Amazon affiliate link.
I'm afraid that your addition of the link might have only one purpose: Generating revenue via Amazon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-24

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

  • In the Wikipedia app for Android or iOS users can create reading lists. The reading lists can be seen on different devices if you are logged in to your account. There is now a browser extension so you can add pages to your reading list from a web browser. At the moment it works with Firefox and Chrome. [52]
  • Advanced item There is a new version of Pywikibot. Pywikibot is a tool to automate tasks on MediaWiki wikis. [53]

Problems

  • The MonoBook skin was changed to make it work better for mobile users. This caused some problems. The change was rolled back to fix them. The new version is now back on the wikis. MonoBook users can opt out from the new responsive design. [54]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 June. It will be on all wikis from 14 June (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the Readers Web team IRC office hour. There you can discuss tools to contribute on the mobile web for the existing MediaWiki skins. The meeting will be on 18 June at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • 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 12 June 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 13 June 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.

21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Passenger

When an IP adds some credible information, why revert? If you don't have time to look for a source, you could just add "citation required", no? I looked, and added a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This appears to be about this edit to The Passenger (opera)) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt!
You're right about the "credible information". I usually remove unsourced material instead of adding a "citation needed" tag if the information does not appear to be neutral or seems to be dubious. Only when the edit is made to a biography of a living person, I strictly remove unsourced material regardless of "credibility".
In this specific case, I should have added a "citation needed" tag or a source. The information was credible; it was even somehow already providing a possible source (likely the website of that opera building, or a news article reporting about the play). I'm not sure why I originally considered the edit to be dubious. I usually skip this specific kind of edits altogether, because my main intention when patrolling recent changes is to remove obviously disruptive edits, to deal with spam and to handle possible conflicts of interest. If it's not a stub, there are likely experienced editors watching the article and dealing with difficult-to-decide cases. This is why my list of contributions might look as if I'm always deleting unsourced information wherever I notice it. That's not the case; I skip a lot of edits, and I would normally have just skipped this one too.
Thank you for finding and adding a source -- I think that's a good improvement to the article, and I have wrongly used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note: Here's what I usually deal with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, got it, - I just wondered, and you are right, others are watching. - I simply remove a lot, but when an addition makes sense, I try to rather look for a source. That's a great opera, btw --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugresha Monastery

As I understand it you are the one who undone my contribution. :)

What do you thing is better - unstylish truth or eloquent falsehood? I know the truth just because I have been living here for more than 30 years (check the IP). And you can just check the information with the Russian Wikipedia page. There never have been any settlement called Ugresha on this ground. There were four villages - Алексеевка, Денисьево, Кишкино, Гремячево - the names remaining as names of parts of our town - and you can see them on Google Maps. In the 30th a working settlement was created with the name of Dzerzhinsky which received the township status later. That's it.

And frankly, I do not understand why you do not require any corroboration for the glaring lie on this page and yet require it from me.

Finally, it is not my problem - I know the truth. It is the problem of those who will learn this lie reading Wikipedia. And it's you who created the problem. Adios! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.117.112.158 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 176.117.112.158
All I was trying to say is: Please be bold and remove any lies from the page. Instead of doing this, you had added a comment without actually fixing the problem. Is that really what you wanted to achieve? For comments, please add a new section on the article's talk page. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugresha_Monastery&diff=846141584&oldid=846020418&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from "Donald Trump"

I did nothing.


Sincerely,

Donald Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:800:415F:C4D5:D8AB:54AA:799E (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2601:249:800:415F:C4D5:D8AB:54AA:799E,
You sadly appear to have accidentally broken an infobox template. Click here to see what I meant.
You might want to try using the Sandbox for test edits instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Per [57], the user just got checkuser-blocked. Which was no surprise at all... Guy (Help!) 21:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Sigh. Yep, I lacked background information on that one. Seemed to be someone complaining about a ClueBot false positive in good faith to me. I wouldn't call them an idiot though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather transparent block evasion. They should know better. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-25

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

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

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 19 June 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 20 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Some old web browsers will not be able to read the Wikimedia wikis. This is because they use an insecure way to connect to them. This means that we get less security for everyone else too. This affects about 0.08% of all traffic to the Wikimedia wikis. This affects for example those who read Wikipedia on a PlayStation 3. [59][60]
  • The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. Because there is no new MediaWiki version this week it will happen on 25 June for most wikis. For the rest it will happen in early July. [61][62]
  • Advanced item All wikis that have not already done so will switch to use the Remex parsing library on 5 July. This is to replace Tidy. You can help fix remaining errors. [63]

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

21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Band name for moe.'s article

Note: This seems to be about this edit to Moe (band) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band is not "Moe" with a stylization to "moe.". "moe." is the band's name, and doesn't need to be explained in any different or ambiguous way. Your edit makes it seem like people have referred to them as "Moe" (capitalized and without the period) which is untrue. Please respond to the talk page if you feel that I am in error. Replacing a bad edit does not make the information correct. In fact, nowhere else in the article is the band referred to with capitalization AND without the period. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.170.115 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Good catch on the comma, also. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.170.115 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 208.44.170.115,
Thank you too for the explanation and the improvement -- you might well be right! The edit originally made me raise an eyebrow because of the comma, and because it made the beginning of the article start with a lowercase letter. I have now only removed the comma, without undoing your edit again.
About the spelling, I'm not entirely sure: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter and the non-binding essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists -- but all the sources of the article use the spelling "moe." as well, suggesting that you're correct.
I see that you have requested moving the page, because the title is capitalized and does not have the period; thank you for taking the time to improve the article! I'm curious to see what other users think about this. Have a great day too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to lend your support to the move, please? It seems that some of the previous "opposers" are objecting to the move (they supported a move to the current (wrong name) page). Yet, Wikipedia clearly shows that moe. (band) should be the right name as referenced here: WP:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Indicating_stylizations. The example cited is of deadmau5, yet there are plenty more articles in which a band/author/artist/person is listed in the correct style (all lowercase). Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This did not turn out well. You appear to have messaged a lot of other editors to join the discussion, which would not have been needed and has been interpreted as "canvassing". But that alone would not have been a huge problem, considering that you obviously did not know about the guideline, and that it is sometimes even misinterpreted by experienced editors. The problem was that you have repeated the same edit over and over again to force these changes into the article during the discussion. When coming back from the block, it would probably be a good idea to try to forget about this "moe." issue. You seem to be interested in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you seem to be interested in actually improving this encyclopedia, and what happened has enriched your experience. Shit happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Moe_(band)#Requested_move_20_June_2018
15:05, 21 June 2018 NeilN (talk | contribs) blocked 208.44.170.115 (talk) with an expiration time of 48 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
15:09, 21 June 2018 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) protected Moe (band) [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 15:09, 25 June 2018) (Persistent vandalism) (hist) (thank)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out horribly. I made an honest mistake with the canvassing. I didn't intend anything malicious, and was unaware of the rule. Chalk it up to "lessons learned". What I will ask is if you could undo the malicious edit that was done by WoodenSuperman, please? If you look at what he did, he removed the entire formatting of the band's name throughout the article using a "replace all". What's interesting was that The article had been acceptable for years. Now, due to my request, the page looks horrible. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, welcome back!
I've copied your message to the article's talk page, because this is something I can not personally decide. It is something that would need to be discussed with the other editors. If they disagree, I think we will just have to accept that. Yes, the article has been changed as a result of a request for exactly the opposite of what happened. This might appear to be unfair, I can understand that!
However, there might not be much you and I can do. Let's just live with it. It won't really hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the Valora Noland article

This is a copy for my talk page archive. Please reply at Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 instead. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy for my talk page archive. Please reply at Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 instead. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is getting too extensive to answer solely in a constant 1-1 dialogue, and likely belongs to this page here. I'll have a closer look later this week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This text has been moved by ToBeFree, 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The following text had originally been added to my user page. The "SO SORRY" is likely referring to this unusual place for a message. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SO SORRY! I don't know where to leave you a message about my edits on my Valora Noland page, so I'll put it here. When you answer, you can tell me where it should have been placed.

Yes, Kamitra 1 is (now getting pretty old) Valora Noland. I wrote the original bio, or enlarged what was there, correcting stuff. Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop. What, just what, do you not approve of? The one who was in show biz is the subject of the article, not the one who went on to other things, Baum family, or whatever. I think this bio should be kept to my experience with show business. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!
Hey Kamitra1, nice to meet you. Feel free to add messages to my talk page – this is probably the best way for contacting other editors, as they will automatically get notified of the edit and can easily respond there. To make sending a message an easy process, there is a "New section" button at the top of every talk page. When using it, there is no need to worry about the position of the message; it will automatically be moved to the bottom, where the newest messages appear. Why the bottom, you may wonder? Because that way, the text can be conveniently read from the top to the bottom in a chronological order. More information about talk pages can be found here: Help:Talk pages
I was unsure about undoing your edit. Before you had sent me a message, I have already restored it, to be on the safe side. I have also already modified the information message regarding the edit, on your talk page. No need to worry!
You might wonder why I have undone the edit in the first place. This is because it didn't appear to be neutral to me (see "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view") and removed a "citation needed" template without actually adding a proper citation. The problem here is that "I am the subject of the article, so I don't need to provide sources" is sadly not a valid argument. There are multiple things that come to my mind regarding this:
I'm sad to have to say this, and I am surprised that nobody has taken the time to explain this issue yet, but I am afraid I have to ask you to avoid making further edits to this specific article, unless you are removing untrue statements according to our "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" policy.
If you notice errors in the article, or would like to expand it, you can do so by copying the article to your userspace: Help:Userspace_draft – Feel free to make any modifications there, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. The changes will then be merged into the article, and everyone can be happy.
I'll send you a belated Welcome message now. You have been here since June 2009, longer than me! It is long overdue that someone appropriately welcomes you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This text has been moved and indented by ToBeFree 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC):
Here I go again. Looked for the 'button' you mentioned called "New Section Button", but couldn't locate.
I did see that you don't want my dialogue for Valora Noland. I think your current version is okay, except, first, you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important, because Tom Lisanti mentioned me in one of his Hollywood books, and he copied what he wrote from articles he had gathered from the 1960s, an piece in TV guide among them. In that article, (50 to 75% false), the author said I played bit parts to try and get into the business. NOT EXACTLY. This is as much as saying I was offering my body to try and get into the business. Rather, I just happened to connect with a top agent, Dick Clayton, before I had moved to tinsel town. (A funny piece of info here is that the "peculiar little man" told me he was responsible for sending James Dean to Dick Clayton. You won't find this mentioned anywhere else, and IT will say other things happened. I can't remember the talent scouts name, so this interesting tidbit should probably not be repeated.) Now you know why I included Dick Clayton in the bio.
I also noticed a few typos in your revised version.
I'll have to look at what you wrote again, but if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress. I wish I had cared more about making good money!
The "Up Your Teddy Bear" thing, first called "Mother", and now "The Seduction of a Nerd" really did happen, probably with John Dereks participation, as he was a good friend of Don Joslyn. I was too, for a short time, friends with Don. They were interested in look-alikes, and I suppose the whole thing was an innocent game-----at that time. But the film today is a little more rancid than at first, and I feel I have the right to say I didn't choose to be in it, nor was I asked, living on the East Coast at the time it was made. Don is determined to claim it really was me to the end. He used a few seconds of a film clip for a closeup in the scene clapping hands with Wally, and the other shots in that scene were someone else, as well as the closeup portrait at the end of the film. The problem with "Mother" aka etc. is that it does not have a leading character one can have much liking for.
Hollywood usually keeps records. Dick Clayton was with the Famous Artists Agency, and the people he represented are listed somewhere in archives. Same for anything else. Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation!
A word here about "Jewish". Actually, I find one aspect of "Jewish" very interesting, and that is that there is no scientific Jewish race. The root of the Jews is the Middle East, and the genealogy, even if many look similar, is Middle Eastern. They have a religious belief in marrying within the Jewish community, and over 4000 years it has produced certain similarities, but it is still a large family showing signs of genealogical hand-me-down, not a race unto itself. There are people of Palestine who have no record of "Jewish" going back many centuries who look just like the Jews. In a c. 1970 Encyclopedia, under "Jews as a Race", Jewish scholar Raphael Patti says Jews are a religion, social and religious traditions, history of the Jews, and a country, but not a race! This is my only peeve with Jewish. "Jewish Race" began with the Jews as a religious belief or tradition.
I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities. I don't have it at home, don't really like it, was not the one who initially placed the page on Valora Noland, will not become a computer nerd, will not master the Wikipedia, and I thank you for your understanding that I'm better at gardening.
Perhaps some days until I answer you again, if there is more to say. Thanks,
Kamitra1 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Drmies because this is about edits made by us two after the original message. Ping Kamitra1, I have moved this here; I hope this is okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really, all I have to say is that content needs to be relevant and well-verified by way of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Kamitra1 on June 20th

Hello Again,

I realized yesterday after Leaving long message in the wrong place again, that I should check my email before going to Wikipedia. There I did find multiple messages from you, and finally cognate that the button I need to click is on your talk page.

I said there are a few typos in the current V. Noland bio. I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. "Her mother ...." etc.

At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after "Star Trek", as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series.

At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon.

I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of. That the talent scout made it possible for me to meet with Dick Clayton, a top agent, and that Mr. Clayton decided to sign me up before I left the Pasadena Playhouse is show biz data, and as I said in my message yesterday, important.

I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up, but if we can get it just fine as we both agree, and lock it from further changes by anyone, that would be good.

I'm one of a small number of earthlings who don't have much fondness for computers and the internet, though I use both as necessary, these days going to the library to get on the net. So sometimes, I only check my email once a week.

Thanks, (and I think there is still another typo than what I've just mentioned)

Valora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamitra1: Hey, nice to meet you again. Please don't worry about the "wrong place", the message has reached me after all. There's a reason that the page is not locked for editing.
I'm copying the suggestions to the article's talk page, to allow others to fix all possible problems pointed out by you, and to improve the article based on your suggestions. We'll definitely have a look at that. If there is something absolutely blatantly wrong or libellous, you can go ahead and remove it, but this does not appear to be the case, so I hope it won't hurt if we take some days to address all these points in detail. I'll mention/notify you as soon as I'm continuing to work on this issue; that should be this weekend, I think. I hope this helps and wish you a nice day. See you later this week! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamitra1: ^ Here's the copy I've mentioned. See you! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, as already announced, here's my longer reply.
Multiple things I need to clarify first:
  • It was not me who redacted the "current" version of the article, except for the changes that I have later implemented on your request above. Please have a look at the article's version history to see all the changes and all the users who made them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history
  • Nobody, not the article subject, not the page creator, noone, owns an article: Wikipedia:Ownership of content
  • Especially when writing about living persons, we need to be very careful to write only relevant, verifiable, and reliably sourced facts. This is meant to protect you, as a person, from libel, and is definitely not meant to discourage you from editing or to avoid including any facts. However, as everyone could claim to "know the facts", this alone is not a valid argument. What we need, for every sentence you would like to add to the article, is a reliable source. A reliable source is not "I'm the subject, I know it". Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
  • Because of exactly that policy, we will happily remove any unsourced statements from the page. Drmies did that, and this is why the article has suddenly noticeably decreased in size. Again, this is meant to protect you, and if I understand correctly, this has even benefited you. You have contested the validity of some statements in the article, and these are gone now. If there are untrue, unsourced statements left, please let us know immediately, and we will remove them. In such a case, you may even remove them yourself -- just please make sure not to replace it by other unsourced content. Removing is okay, replacing is questionable.
  • What "we both agree" on, sadly, does not necessarily matter.
  • A page can be protected against editing, but the policies for this are strict and it won't help in this specific case. A page can not be protected to save your own preferred version; a page will only be protected to prevent vandalism, disruption, edit warring, repeated addition of libellous material etc.: Wikipedia:Protection_policy
About the changes you're requesting to be made: I have implemented some of them, because I think that they are really good suggestions.
Your editing requests:
  • "Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop."  Done by Drmies. If it happens again, please leave a message here on this talk page. You may remove any libellous content, without replacing it, without discussing it before. You should, however, explain your removal. Please state clearly in your edit summary that you are "removing untrue content from a biography of a living person". Afterwards, please leave a short note on the bottom of this talk page here, for our information. This could be something like "I have removed an untrue statement from the article again, because it had no reliable source. ~~~~"
  • "[…]you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important[…]"  Comment: As Drmies said, and as I am trying to explain above, you would need to provide reliable sources for this, and it would also need to be relevant to the article. If you can provide reliable sources for a specific suggested addition to the article, feel free to suggest it here. I think that I might actually add it, but maybe someone decides to remove it because they do not consider it to be relevant enough. If that happens, a discussion might start, which you would be very welcome to participate in.
  • "I also noticed a few typos in your revised version."  Done, I hope. Please point any other specific typos that you see.
  • "if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress."  Comment: Not without a reliable source.
  • "The 'Up Your Teddy Bear' thing, first called 'Mother', and now 'The Seduction of a Nerd' really did happen"  Comment: Sorry, but not without a reliable source. This policy is meant to protect you against libellous statements. Especially if you have experienced libel before, I hope that you appreciate our strict approach to this.
  • Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation!  Comment: Oh yes, it does! It does, it does, it does. Please. If it is so obvious and verifiable, it should not be a problem to take one minute of your precious time to find a reliable source and add it.
Side note: Imagine someone adds "lives in North Korea" to your article and claims they're the article subject. What do you expect us to do?
  • "A word here about 'Jewish'."  Done by Drmies: The words "Jew" or "Jewish" are not currently appearing in the article. I assume this is okay?
  • "I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities."  Comment:
“I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
– Robert Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet, 1995
(Szczerba, Robert J. "15 Worst Tech Predictions Of All Time". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-06-21.)
  • "I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. 'Her mother ....' etc."  Done by me, thanks for the good suggestion!
  • "At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after 'Star Trek', as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series."  Done by me, sounds good! This is exactly the kind of edit requests that I hope everyone will be happy to implement at any time, whenever you request it.
  • "At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon."  Comment: Not done yet, as this does not seem to be based on an actual Wikipedia guideline, but rather on your personal interpretation of the book title. If you can provide a quote from the Manual of Style that supports your suggestion, I will happily implement it. Otherwise, it appears to be typographically inconsistent to me. The other book titles are not written with quotation marks and you don't want quotation marks there?
  • I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of.  Comment: No, that's not the problem. The problem is lack of a reliable source, not my opinion on the choice of words. In this specific case, there's another policy that is important to be taken care about: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  • "[That is,] […] as I said in my message yesterday, important." Sorry, but nobody owns an article, so there is no specific person that can authoritatively decide what is "important" and what is not. However, feel free to suggest a sentence to be added to the article, which is backed by a reliable source.
  • I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up […]  Comment: I agree, and I disagree at the same time. Yes, you have not "screwed the article up". Instead of removing wrong statements, you have replaced them by other unsourced, possibly non-neutral statements. While you are always free to remove wrong unsourced statements from the page, you are strongly discouraged from attempting to replace it by a better version. That's not my personal idea, that's a widely accepted guideline: Wikipedia:Autobiography -- I am, however, very surprised that nobody before me has mentioned this guideline to you in nearly 10 years of editing. That's certainly a fault on our own side here at Wikipedia; we can not blame you for this. We need to be self-critical here: We should have told you about this earlier, and someone should have clarified all these points above much, much earlier. This is not your fault, and I can completely understand that it negatively surprises you. I'm sorry for the late explanation, but I think that this is better done late than never. Just to clarify for later readers: WP:AUTO has already been a widely accepted community guideline in 2005. It has received some media attention because Jimbo Wales had allegedly violated the guideline himself "at least 18 times".
("Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio - Slashdot". slashdot.org. Retrieved 2018-06-21.)
@Kamitra1: I hope this helps. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Message from 26 June 2018

(original title: "From Kamitra1 (Valora Noland)"; moved from ToBeFree's talk page 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC))

It has taken me some days to get back here. I am 76-1/2-yrs-old now, but not senile. I mention my age, for it may make some difference as to how interested one might be in spending one's days on the internet as you may be doing.

A few things. "Not without a reliable source." This is as much as saying I must be lying. Who better than I who was in Hollywood during most of the 1960s and lived the life in question?

"Horse Stories" is for sale on Amazon. If you want to see the title as it is, there is picture of the book cover on an Amazon site which shows the title with quotation marks, so please add them to the reference. What better proof than this?

I actually studied with acting coach Sherman Marks as well as the other two I mentioned. Sherman was the last, and a kind man in comparison to Robert Gist. Jeff Cory's acting lab was something I started soon after moving to H. from the Playhouse. Need "reliable source"? I think you are a trouble maker first, and a Wikipedia editor second, or whoever took this out of my bio.

As I already wrote, to say I had an agent (who just happened to be one of the top ones) before I left the Playhouse is important data, and Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961. No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words. One could say: "...stage name. A talent scout spotted her in a Pasadena market and connected her to a top Hollywood agent, Dick Clayton, who agreed to represent her, all this before she left the Playhouse." I didn't remain with Dick Clayton, and he didn't stay perpetually with Famous Artists. I think it is also important and interesting show biz data that a fine agent is not always the best answer for an actor, as they may spend most of their time on their already successful clients, James Dean, Jane Fonda, Harrison Ford, and others.

The "Jewish" paragraph I entered last week was in response to someone thinking it was important to link my show biz page to info on birth certificates and the Baum family, as though they were seeking to link me to Jewish, not always beneficial in this world. Bring out the greater truth whenever possible ........ (i.e., don't continue the idea of hand-me-down or genealogic Jewish identity. It is no different, as I see it, than saying someone is genealogically Catholic.

I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense. This is how I think it is with putting me in the sandbox, and messing with my page in the first place. It was quite alright as it was. Kamitra1 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kamitra1,
Welcome back. I'm sorry if anything we did or wrote made you feel like being treated as "senile". I do not believe that anyone has actually intended that. If the feeling persists, please point out what makes you think so, so that we can avoid this in the future.
Nobody is saying that you're lying. It is unlikely that any of us even thinks that. I don't. However, to protect you, as a person, from libel and defamation, Wikipedia requires so-called "reliable sources", especially for articles about living people. Asking for these "reliable sources" does not imply that anyone thinks you'd be lying.
Article subjects directly editing "their" articles are very likely doing so in good faith. They might, however, be unaware of their conflict of interest. The result are often well-meant non-neutral edits, biased towards a certain personal viewpoint. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia which strives to describe topics in a neutral way. To avoid this problem entirely, the "sandbox" idea exists: You can edit a copy of the article in any way you want, and the changes will be verified by experienced editors. This has nothing to do with "senility"; I think that most of these editors are successful businesspeople writing about their companies and achievements. The term "sandbox" might sound belittling because children play in sandboxes. This is not the message the term is meant to convey here on Wikipedia. We call it a "sandbox" because it allows the user to experiment with the syntax, and because it allows the user to make frequent small edits without having to fear about leaving the article in an unfinished state. It allows users to be bold even more than they're already encouraged to be when editing articles directly. Children use real sandboxes because it lets their imagination run free, in an unconstrained, nearly rule-free environment. This is exactly the same reason why we, as adult Wikipedia editors, use "sandboxes" as well.
If it makes you feel better, most experienced editors have a "sandbox" they use to draft their articles. I used a sandbox to translate Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) step by step, before releasing the finished translation to the public. Using a sandbox before making changes go public is a sign of prudence, not childishness.
Back to "reliable sources"; emphasis mine: "[…] Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961."
Sorry, but this is very unlikely to be what we do at Wikipedia. Being forced to privately contact individuals for verification is not what "verifiability" is about. Wikipedia:Verifiability
No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words.
It is also not about "bullying". https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html
Like Jimbo already wrote in 2006, "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference." You are encouraged to find and provide a reliable source, if you would like your text to be in the biographical article about a living person.
"[…] or whoever took this out of my bio." Please have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history
You can click the "prev" link next to any change to start browsing through the article's history. I think I might not even be the intended target of your accusation. I'm just investing hours of my free time to answer lengthy questions by annoyed actors on Wikipedia, to explain things I have not necessarily even done myself.
One last thing,
I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense.
I am not either; my pseudonym matches my real name. There's even a photo of me on my user page. However, before complaining about anyone for protecting their identity, please read the following two articles: Gamergate controversy, Doxing
Some Wikipedia administrators, for example, are regularly the target of harassment and threats of violence. There's also a reason that faces of people accused of crime, and faces of policemen, are sometimes blurred on TV and in newspapers. This is not an issue dedicated to the Internet. Witness protection has already existed in the US back in 1871.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valora Noland bio

I see "Horse Stories" got its quotation marks. Thank you.

It is just a lot of bother to fish for old records from Famous Artists which would verify that I started with that agency and Dick Clayton in 1961. I wrote you a possible other way of entering the info at the end of first paragraph. My changed version could finish with "agreed to represent her, giving her cause to leave the Playhouse." The Pasadena Playhouse was a 3-yr. course, and I regret leaving when I did to go to Hollywood. So, for those who might be interested in my brief career, it says why I landed in Hollywood when I did. It was because of the talent scout who should have left me alone ----- or, I should have asked Mr. Clayton if he would still represent me if I finished another year and a half. Would you like me to get old records which prove I attended the Playhouse? You are being unfair, but I have to let you do what you like.

At the bottom you (I assume) have added Divine Machine two times. #5 is a duplicate, and would you please remove it? The Divine Machine was published by yours truly in a limited edition of 100 copies, and is available only from one small shop in San Francisco, and they don't mail copies. It has three fold-outs which I taped onto the relevant pages, and for this book to be mass-produced it will need very special print shop robots! Also, it is very expensive to print (a lot of color), and expensive to buy. It might be best to leave it off the page. Also, it seems this reference goes to a second line, so the full sub-title could be shown on the page. But again, maybe delete. Divine Machine. Capital "M" please on Machine.

Thanks,Kamitra1 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamitra1:, welcome back. Before I answer further, please read my latest message at Talk:Valora_Noland#Editing_requests_by_Kamitra1. I am afraid that you have not seen it yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More from Kamitra1

Hello Again,

Interesting 60 Minutes last night, about the bank robber who became a distinguished law professor. If we follow the Masters, we will come forward, a little or a lot.

I see a message from you which says you want to know that I have read what you have written. I think I did, or have. I find all of this less than agreeable, as you have (or you and others) have delighted in taking important facts out of my bio. But my life has more chapters than the earliest one in Hollywood.

My bio now says I have "authored books "Horse Stories", The Divine Machine, and Water Lily Ponds." I don't see any reason for having a reference for Divine Machine below, linked to Amazon. Amazon, and others I'm sure, has for MANY years had Divine Machine in its data base. It is a result of the isbn # leading them to list the book, but this does not mean there is a publication of the book. Also, the subtitle was/is not fully written there, missing the last part, "structure of life." So the fact that this mini publication is showing up on Amazon (and as unavailable), is because of automation. I think it would be appropriate to take this lower ref. (second mention of the book) off the page.

Since you call yourself "ToBeFree", you might be interested in Divine Machine. In most cases, people copy knowledge from a book, as in to pass a test, but it doesn't go very deep. If we can come to new knowledge on our own without being told, then it enters the blood stream. D. M. offers this possibility.Kamitra1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kamitra1
thank you for taking the time to read the long message. I was hoping that it would explain the situation in a way that is agreeable for you. Hm.
I'm not saying that the other chapters of your life don't belong into the article. They would probably be a enrichment, completing the currently incomplete article. I do understand that.
The problem is not so much relevance – the problem is a lack of reliable secondary sources. It would not help to call anyone for a personal verification; what Wikipedia needs is real verifiability by published sources.
Is it "unfair" to treat everyone equally, by requiring everyone alike to adhere to established Wikipedia policies, and then writing detailled explanations if someone has questions about them? We are not treating this article differently than all the other biographies about living people. We are not asking you anything else than we'd ask other people in this situation. I would be surprised if anyone is actually unfairly biased against you or your edits. We're commenting on content, not the contributor, and we're making sure that nobody is unjustly being preferred.
About the policies I've mentioned above, these are:
If you feel that Drmies or me are misinterpreting these, wrongly explaining these; if you feel that we are actually being unfair, please explicitly explain this. Wikipedia has multiple places that can help with dispute resolution; see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
If this discussion is going in circles, and you would like a third, neutral opinion on the case, please say so; I will then add a link to this discussion to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. This would be an appropriate, non-formal next step that I personally would take if I was in your situation and felt being treated unfairly.
I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page (Talk:Valora Noland), especially because one might be requesting input from other editors later. When replying, please reply at Talk:Valora Noland, so that we have a central point of discussion about this issue.
Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy for my talk page archive. Please reply at Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 instead. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the gratuitous rudeness. I don't know what got into me - you were probably a distraction/proxy target for some work issue or something ... oops, bad of me ... apologies and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DBaK, it happens, and it's okay.
I know how much it can burn and hurt for months if the recipient does not answer to an apology, leaving the sender with a very strange feeling of emptiness. So: No worries, I can assure you that your discussion message is absolutely not a problem for me.
Because you are not explicitly referring to a specific page, I am unsure if it would be appropriate of me to provide a link to the page you're very likely talking about. I would like to do this, however, because I am creating a huge archive of all my longer conversations. It allows others to easily read a "chronology" of my edits and interactions with other editors. You'll notice that I have made mistakes as well; I feel that keeping these next to all the good things is probably the best thing one can ever do on their talk page. Would that be okay for you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, absolutely fine, and thank you for checking. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has likely been about this discussion at Talk:Shon Faye ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, best wishes to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor: "bdi" tags in HTML source

See phabricator:T197916:

Please do not copy "bdi" tags into generated wikitext

In the new "source editor" part of VisualEditor, when copying log entries into wikitext, a "bdi" html tag gets inserted around usernames. You can see this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&diff=846966722&oldid=846966405&diffmode=source

You can also see that it breaks the wikitext, so it's not just a style issue -- it's a real bug.

Thank you very much in advance. :)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Kamitra1 (Valora Noland)

This text has been moved to 🡺 Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 🡸

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

stop deleting my stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM A FEMENIST (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Building a house" appeared to be an unlikely death cause to me, especially as the article mentions a "stroke" instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 29 June 2018 There'sNoTime (talk | contribs) blocked I AM A FEMENIST (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my edit to Ballymoney High School?

I made a factual edit about the expansion of Ballymoney High School, and you removed it. Why? Halilooladsmynameislauren (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Halilooladsmynameislauren, thanks for your message, and thanks for creating an account!
Is this about the edits made by 2A00:23C5:F302:E600:49C7:8E20:80C:8614? See Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:F302:E600:49C7:8E20:80C:8614 for a list of these edits.
You might not have been doing all these edits; I assume that it is a shared IP address that you and other people in the school use. All of these edits have been adding unsourced information to articles; some of them have been doing so at biographies of living or recently deceased persons. If you, personally, had been making these edits, please read the following page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
The specific edit you are probably talking about is here: View diff
I had undone it because the "101 years" appeared strange to me, and because there was no source for the whole paragraph. Entering the name "Mollie Holmes" in Google now appears to prove you correct in this regard, but we also need a source for the whole "Holmes wing" statement. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability
However, for now, I have restored your edit. I assume it to be correct, but just lacking a reference. Could you add one, like described here? Help:Referencing for beginners
Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CS, WP:RS, WP:WPNOTRS blah blah blah... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Made me laugh in real life. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Template:Guideline list is all you need. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As an additional note, please learn the way I answer these questions, it makes my life easier ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will totally make a plain-text version of that, adding "This is the only warning template you will ever need" and "bad humorous advice" above it. I'll ping you when it's done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't think linking tons of policies is humorous. Take it seriously man. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah--- oh. You do this actually. I wasn't aware of that. Hm. Not my style, but I do understand why you do that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Wikipedia is all about content creation, others are secondary. (including helping newcomers) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One day, the current "content creators" will leave Wikipedia, and be replaced by frustrated new editors who have never been welcomed and who stubbornly edit-war over tiny bad content changes to their "own" articles because nobody ever took the time to lend them a helping hand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Sorry, I could not resist actually creating it: User:ToBeFree/uw-combined-1. No offense please. I respect your way of answering and I do see its benefits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have so much time!!!!! ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well no one ever taught me anything. Self-learning is an important skill. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/feed/?userPHIDs=PHID-USER-4f6g67fxmrb2t5z7dzky&after=6573047788356273019

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198552

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikitech:Incident_documentation/????????? (modify, sign)

SarahMitchels82

Hi!

Why did you remove what i wrote on SarahMitchels82 page? It’s purely the Truth.

Sofianichols (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Sofianichols: Any messages should be posted in the talk page of a user. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-27

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

  • The database for tags will be changed. This will happen on 2 July on French Wikipedia and 9 July on all other wikis. Please report if recent changes get slower or you can't save edits. This could especially affect editors who use the database on ToolForge. [64]

Problems

  • Last week's MediaWiki update was rolled back. This was because of a database problem. [65]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

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 3 July 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 4 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

00:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey

You use STiki or Huggle now? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly went online & answered via HAN/IRC ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about participating in AfC? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel honored by your suggestion, but I'll stick to translations for now. Somehow, I think that writing a new article from scratch is best done by native speakers, while translation allows me to help the community in a way that most native speakers can't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I mixed that up with Wikipedia:Requested_articles! I might consider having a closer look at AfC later, but Huggle keeps me busy well enough ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BDI tags break wikilinks: Proof

Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A107.77.249.11

phabricator:T193414, phabricator:T197916 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-28

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

  • WebM video files have smaller file size but still be of the same quality. Creating WebM files will take longer time. [66]
  • The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. This was supposed to already have happened but was delayed. For most wikis this will happen on 9 July. For the rest it will happen on 16 July. [67]
  • Advanced item All wikis now use the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy. This could cause errors. You can help fix the errors. [68]

Problems

  • When you rolled back an edit it could get both the Rollback and Undo tags. This has been fixed. [69]
  • Rollbacks from autopatrolled users were not marked as patrolled. This has been fixed. [70]

Changes later this week

  • When you edit a link in the visual editor there will be two separate buttons to change which page the link goes to (target) or its text (label). [71][72]
  • On the mobile version you can find a link to an editor's contributions from their user page. Now this will work even if they haven't created a user page. [73]
  • When you edit a discussion on the mobile version you sometimes get your signature automatically added. This will now not happen if you have already added a signature manually. This is to avoid double signatures. [74]
  • Structured discussions toolbars will have more style options. [75]
  • Advanced item When you look at Wikimedia code in Gerrit there will be a new interface. It is on by default for new users. This is also true for developers. This is to make it easier to understand what is happening. [76]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 July. It will be on all wikis from 12 July (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 10 July 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 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Today all administrators can edit CSS and JavaScript for the entire wiki. There will be a new user group for editing CSS and JavaScript. Administrators will no longer automatically be able to do this. This is because it is a security risk when all administrator accounts can edit JavaScript even if they never plan to or do not know how it works. You can read more. [77]
  • Page previews will be on by default for new accounts. [78]

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

23:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

More from Kamitra1

This text has been moved to 🡺 Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 🡸

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More from Valora

This text has been moved to 🡺 Talk:Valora Noland#Editing requests by Kamitra1 🡸

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liferay Article

Hello, I noticed that you dramatically cut down the size of the Wikipedia article on Liferay in August 2018. I understand the need to maintain a neutral perspective, but it would be great if the Liferay entry at least included mention of our product offerings. This is particularly important since we just launched several new ones: Liferay Commerce and Liferay Analytics Cloud. See: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/liferay-leaps-into-digital-customer-experience-market-seeks-growth-in-canada/406952. Full disclosure: I currently serve as the PR Manager for Liferay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yotaml2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yotaml2, thanks for getting in touch, and thanks for creating an account.
The best way to get these changes implemented by experienced Wikipedia editors is probably requesting them on the article's talk page, Talk:Liferay, and suggesting a new version of the article as a "userspace draft". This is very easy to do, because the following page will automatically create it for you: Help:Userspace draft -- just enter "Liferay" in that box and click on the button next to it, which will become blue and clickable as soon as you have entered something in the box.
Thank you, also, for disclosing your affiliation. This is especially important when actually submitting that draft for review, so that others can understand why you would like these edits to be made. I would also suggest adding a short notice on your user page, by creating ---> this page <--- with the following content: {{paid|user=Yotaml2|employer=Liferay}} -- the result will look like this:
A very useful page that I would highly recommend reading is: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
In a nutshell, your suggestions are very welcome; while the policy guideline discourages you from directly editing the article, it does invite you to use the process I have described above. I think that this way, we can find a solution that is satisfactory for all the parties involved.
Corection 02:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC): "policy" --> "guideline" ~ ToBeFree
I am copying this to the article's talk page, Talk:Liferay, to help other readers to understand the situation. If there are any questions left, feel free to message me directly here, or to ask for help at the Teahouse, at any time. I hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, - Thank for your kind response and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I will act on your recommendations as soon as I am able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yotaml2 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, I have made the requested changes to Talk:Liferay and updated my user page. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you recommend that I do anything else. Yotaml2 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yotaml2, nice to meet you again. Thank you very much - that looks good. I'm currently trying to figure out how to find a Wikipedia editor experienced with business portal software to ask them to have a closer look at your requested change. I tried to research a bit into the Liferay Digital Experience Platform to create a more encyclopedic, less promotional description of DXP, but I have noticed that this task would exceed my knowledge about this kind of software by far. I have, after some searching, noticed that the article already links to the Enterprise portal article. This is very good; more links like that one could be helpful especially for non-tech-savvy readers, and for tech-savvy readers who never have heard the term "Enterprise portal" before. I think it might be a nice idea to add similar links (so-called "wikilinks" or "internal links") to your suggested edit.
Ideally, some currently unnecessarily promotional portions of the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic writing style. Company and product names are less important; describing what these things do is probably more useful. The following sentence from the current version of the article might show what I mean:
In April 2013, Liferay partnered with TIBCO Software to offer a series of Liferay enterprise Connectivity Adapters (eC Adapters) that use TIBCO ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks with the intention of easing integration of Liferay Portal with multiple systems.
Hm. What is a "Liferay enterprise Connectivity Adapter", what is "TIBCO ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks"; could this be rewritten using general technical terms instead of brand names? I lack the knowledge to explain that sentence to the reader -- and that might be exactly the problem.
Here's an example I just made up in my head, taken partly from this Samsung store listing and modified by me to look even more promotional:
In 2018, Samsung released a top-quality, best-selling enterprise 970 series NVMeᵀᴹ SSD powered by the latest V-NAND technology, and equipped to deliver exceptional performance.
This should be rewritten to something like:
In 2018, the company released a new type of Solid State Drive, using vertical NAND technology. The internal flash memory cells of the drive are stacked vertically to achieve higher storage capacity.
My example is probably not perfect, but I hope that it explains the general direction of moving from "promotional" to "encyclopedic".
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree Thank you. Would it be OK for me to add my suggested edit to the Liferay article until a more technical editor has a chance to review? Yotaml2 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yotaml2, I personally would suggest avoiding it because of Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" (COI) guideline:
COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.
This especially, most strongly, applies to paid editors. The guideline already, generally, says the following about conflicts of interest:
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly
It has an even stronger wording about paid editing:
you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly
Also, three things that come to my mind:
  • There is no hurry.
  • You said in your initial message that it would be great if the Liferay entry at least included mention of our product offerings, and that [t]his is particularly important since we just launched several new ones. What is the real reason to mention specific brand names in the article, you might need to ask yourself - and if the honest answer is "promotion", please see Wikipedia:PROMO, a part of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy.
  • An edit that only extends the article by one additional product information might be ignoring larger, more fundamental problems, like the usage of brand names instead of general terms, and the lack of explanation of these terms. There is a difference between company websites, which can contain any advertisement text the company likes, and a free encyclopedia that should only contain neutral content of encyclopedic value. If there was an article about Liferay in the Encyclopedia Americana, would it contain these sentences? And if not, why not?*
    *(this is not a general rule, as also described on the long policy page above, but it might help to understand a potential problem in the Liferay article)
The article can definitely be improved; in my opinion, it should be. As described in my previous message, I lack the deep know-how to do this for the Liferay article. Other editors' approaches to promotional sentences might be even more rigorous: If I added the suggested change 1:1 to the article, there is no guarantee that it wouldn't cause the whole list to be removed for lack of encyclopedic value, until a suitable replacement is found. Because, and that's again important to keep in mind, there is no hurry. There is no deadline. If the article is completely rewritten and the process takes five years, that's perfectly okay. Pushing paid, promotional, unencyclopedic changes is unlikely to succeed.
Possible next steps, if you have the time to do this (hey, if you get money for doing it, take the chance! Win-win!)
  • Copying the complete article text into the sandbox, which currently only contains a single paragraph. I hoped that the "userspace draft" creation tool would have automatically done that; if there are problems doing it manually, feel free to ask me for assistance with this step. I'll happily help!
  • Adding the suggested new sentence to the sandbox
  • Modifying the preceding sentence, which I had been taking as a "bad example" in my previous message, to be more encyclopedic: Explaining what is happening instead of mentioning as many brands as possible for SEO.
    (that's an essay linked behind the word SEO, not an established policy or guideline. I've linked it because it has some good points, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.)
  • Improving the whole article in the same fashion, after having noticed the huge difference in the example sentence
  • Letting someone without experience in your business, but with basic IT knowledge, read the article, after having explained the potential issue and the reason for the changes to them. Ask them for an honest opinion if they actually think that it is an improvement to the encyclopedia, and if it improves understandability of the article to them personally. Comprehension questions by the reader could be very useful new input for more detailled explanations.
  • Finally, submitting the draft for approval. This is a bit tricky because the article "already exists". When you're at this point, please send me a message on my talk page again. Alternatively, feel free to add {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to your draft, to ask an experienced Wikipedia user to have a closer look and possibly implement the changes. If you do this manually, please explicitly state "This is meant to be an improvement to the existing [[Liferay]] article, after a discussion I had at the following page: [[User_talk:ToBeFree#Liferay_Article]], on 2018-07-19. If this link does not work anymore, please search for 'Liferay' in ToBeFree's talk page archive, around 2018-07-19. This should explain the reason for the changes." on the draft page.
I hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle message

Hello. I just want to let you know that in the coming version of Huggle (3.4.5), there will be a new feature of editing pages directly inside Huggle using an edit form. The edit form functions same as the web one. The default shortcut for this is E and the shortcut for "Edit page in browser" (which previously was E) has changed to Alt+E. If you want more non-automated edits or you prefer editing pages in the browser, you can swap the shortcuts of the above. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Petrb. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting feature, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

fighting vandalism

Thank you for quality articles such as Alte Brücke (Frankfurt), translated from German, for welcoming new users, fighting vandalism with precise messages, for explaining in detail and resolving with diplomacy, for offering a cookie and recognition, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is so nice, Gerda Arendt, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the expressive images, grow a rainbow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Time to archive your talk page. 330,000+ bytes wtf. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks Abelmoschus Esculentus - as you probably know, ClueBot III already does that here: Messages older than 3 months get automatically archived to the already-existing archive. I'm just very active. I am considering to decrease the archival time. The page has already reached its "maximum" duration, and old posts are currently getting archived while new ones come. If the rate stays constant, the page length would stay constant -- which might indeed not be desirable with a page length of 300k bytes. At least I know now that I get about 100kB of talk page messages every month. That's cool. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just set that as 30d. Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 01:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Follow-up @Abelmoschus Esculentus: ClueBot III is down since July 01, 10:31. (contributions / talk page discussion) That explains why the page has grown even more than expected, but 30d is definitely a good idea. I will migrate to Lowercase sigmabot III if the problem persists. I have been using ClueBot instead because its concept seemed to be more sympathic and well-conceived than the others to me, but that's just my subjective impression. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2018-29

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

Changes later this week

  • Your watchlist will show changes from the last seven days instead of three. If you have already set a length preference it will not change. [82]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from July 18. It will be on all wikis from July 19 (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 July 17 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 July 18 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Some articles have messages to readers about problems with the article. For example that it does not cite sources or might not be neutral. Readers do not see these messages on the mobile version. The developers now want to show them. You can read more and leave feedback.
  • You can use <inputbox> to create search boxes for specific pages. For example to search the archives of a community discussion page. Instead of prefix:Page name you will see a text that explains which pages are being searched. You can read more and leave feedback.

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

16:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Military vet

Note: This is likely about this edit to Woodville, Texas ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a proud military vet serving his country from Woodville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persontr (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Persontr.
Thank you for your message, and thank you for adding information to Wikipedia.
Just to clarify the situation: Are you in any way affiliated with that person? Please have a look at the "Welcome!" message on your talk page for more information: User_talk:Persontr
I have undone the edit because it added the name of one single person to the lead section of the article. This is rarely neutral, and rarely relevant for the lead section.
Is there a specific reason why you chose not to add the name to the list of notable persons in that article instead?
If he is notable, I would recommend creating an article about him first... unless you are affiliated with them in any way -- see your talk page.
Possibly relevant guideline about the lead section and levels of useful detail: Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_detail
Definitely useful, plain and simple guide about conflicts of interest: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
I hope this helps! Feel free to ask me if there are any questions left. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=850954307"