User talk:ToBeFree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 23 July 2018 (→‎A barnstar for you!: add HTML anchor). 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.

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]

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. [1][2]
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked. [3]
  • 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. [4]
  • 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. [5]
  • 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. [6]

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. [7]

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. [8]
  • 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. [9]
  • 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. [10]

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. [11]
  • A survey is collecting information on what users think about how Wikimedia wiki pages are loaded. This information could be used in future development. [12]
  • 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. [13][14]

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. [15]
  • Planet Wikimedia collects blogs about Wikimedia. It will now use the Rawdog feed aggregator to do this instead of Planet. [16][17]
  • 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. [18]

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. [19]

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. [22]
  • Advanced item There is a new version of Pywikibot. Pywikibot is a tool to automate tasks on MediaWiki wikis. [23]

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. [24]

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 [27], 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. [29][30]
  • 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. [31][32]
  • 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. [33]

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. [34]

Problems

  • Last week's MediaWiki update was rolled back. This was because of a database problem. [35]

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. [36]
  • 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. [37]
  • Advanced item All wikis now use the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy. This could cause errors. You can help fix the errors. [38]

Problems

  • When you rolled back an edit it could get both the Rollback and Undo tags. This has been fixed. [39]
  • Rollbacks from autopatrolled users were not marked as patrolled. This has been fixed. [40]

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). [41][42]
  • 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. [43]
  • 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. [44]
  • Structured discussions toolbars will have more style options. [45]
  • 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. [46]
  • 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. [47]
  • Page previews will be on by default for new accounts. [48]

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]
Hi ToBeFree, OK, I have not made any edits to the Liferay article itself. However, I revised the article in sandbox so that the full article is present. I also slightly modified the previous sentence "In May 2016..." to be more encyclopedic. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know if I did this correctly, but I'm trying my best to follow guidelines. The revised version is here: User:Yotaml2/sandbox/Liferay. As for your point regarding urgency, I do feel that there's an argument to be made that the article should be as up-to-date as possible. For example, it would probably be an issue if the Wikipedia article for Donald Trump only mentioned his real estate career in the 1980s and didn't make note of the fact that he is now the President of the United States. Yotaml2 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yotaml2, thank you for taking the time to do this. I have now actually made changes to the article based on your sandbox draft. See here for more information: Talk:Liferay#Request_for_edits_to_Liferay_Wikipedia_page
Popular articles, like Donald Trump, attract an enormous amount of readers all over the world. It is almost guaranteed that they'll update the article within a few minutes whenever something interesting is in the news about him. For this reason, you are definitely correct, it would be very strange if that article wasn't up to date. There is no rule that would force anyone to update it, though. That's the voluntary nature of Wikipedia, and -- to be honest -- one of the main reasons why articles about very specialized topics that only few people understand rarely get updated and often lack information. Sometimes, this causes companies to attempt fixing the issue themselves, but many of them don't do it as professional and patient as you fortunately do. This causes some Wikipedia volunteers to be a bit allergic against any "conflict of interest editing" or "paid editing", whenever they see it. I would like to thank you again for the exemplary manner of dealing with this possible conflict of interest. If everyone did it like that, Wikipedia would not have many of its current problems. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 22 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. [52]
  • 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]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hi ToBeFree, thank you very much for your kind comments and your patience in working with me on the Liferay article. Yotaml2 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Yotaml2, this made my day! Feel free to ask at any time if new questions arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=851688040"