User talk:ToBeFree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 16 August 2019 (→‎A barnstar for you!: <3). 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
Less active than usual
Any messages will be answered in a timely manner. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

All editors freely license their work to the public, and no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws and never plagiarize from any sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but editors should strive to find free alternatives first.

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility

Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks or edit wars. Seek consensus, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,848,366 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.

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; the last message was written 6 years ago. 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 & 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My personal interpretation of Special:Diff/856857493 is that the user may already be aware of this message. I guess I will archive this section when the timer above shows "36 months ago". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2019 (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]
Apology to 75.110.241.177: Please read this if you ever come back

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]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page? Thank you so much!

Hello!

We re-submitted our entry for Bonetti Kozerski Architecture. Does it work editorially for Wiki? Do we need to enter the text into quotation marks?

Cheers, Margo

Hi Margo, who is "we"? 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In repsonse!

Headings converted to subheadings; duplicate text removed

"We" is Me. Margo, nice to meet you! :)

Sillaro Valley (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me questions is format

Hello again!

I have been working on formatting and I wanted to know if I need to include all quotations for my sources? Thank you! Margo Sillaro Valley (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Margo, do you really have no connection to the company? None at all?
Please edit the text of the draft directly, instead of creating new text at the bottom of the article.
The article has been submitted for review, but as you will notice when looking at Draft:Bonetti Kozerski Architecture, the old text is still at the top, and new text has unnecessarily been added to the bottom.
When you have corrected this, feel free to let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page?

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an architecture geek! This is all new me so I just wanted to be sure. Do I need to include references and external links.? Do I need need to delete everything and then start over? Or do I just need to make the two edits you suggested? Thank you!!! Margo Sillaro Valley (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sillaro Valley, please have a closer look at Draft:Bonetti_Kozerski_Architecture.
At the top, there is the article you need to edit and improve.
At the bottom, there is an incorrectly placed raw-text submission.
Please incorporate all your desired changes into the top article and delete the bottom duplicate afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page?

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is the feedback I have: At the top, there is the article you need to edit and improve. At the bottom, there is an incorrectly placed raw-text submission.

Here is the top: Bonetti/Kozerski Architecture is an international design firm located in New York City.

Founded in 2000 by Italian-born Enrico Bonetti, AIA and British-born Dominic Kozerski, RIBA, the firm’s portfolio spans residential, retail, hospitality, cultural and commercial design. Highlights include projects in collaboration with tastemakers such as Ian Schrager, Andre Balazs, Donna Karan, Rick Rubin, Diego Della Valle, and Arne and Marc Glimcher.

What sort of edit does it need?

For the bottom: How is this incorrectly placed? Forays into the educational and cultural spheres have resulted in two of Bonetti/Kozerski Architecture’s most ambitious projects. The firm designed the interiors for the flagship campus of Avenues: The World School (pre-K to 12th grade), which opened in Manhattan in 2013. It also designed the new headquarters and multi-gallery exhibition space for PACE Gallery, an eight-story 70,000 square foot ground-up building slated to open in the fall of 2019 in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood.


Thank you!

Sillaro Valley (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sillaro Valley, use your browser's text search function to search for the text "RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS". You will notice that it appears twice on the page. This is because the page contains a duplicate article. Please fix this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page?

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I changed the sentence. Did that help?

Margo Sillaro Valley (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No. What you did there made the page worse because, for example, you removed all the references. Search the page for the phrase "working with creative and successful individuals" and you'll find it twice: Content is duplicated. That's obviously not how it should be. There should be only one copy of the draft on the page, the one you want reviewers to look at. (By the way, that phrase is one example of the inappropriately promotional tone; Wikipedia shouldn't contain such language at all.) Huon (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page?

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have several secondary sources for my article to include with our article. Do I need to add them within the article and so you think that will help with giving a neutral tone by adding it? My question is do you think that will be helpful or do we need to work on the article itself more?

The firm gained initial recognition for an apartment in Manhattan's Upper West Side that they designed for fashion designer Donna Karan. [1] [2] [3], marking the beginning of a collaboration that encompassed a house in East Hampton[4] and a vacation compound in Turks and Caicos[5]. From that ensued projects for hotelier Andre Balazs [6] and Italian industrialist Diego Della Valle, cementing a reputation for being able to work with very creative and strong-minded clients[7]. Further residential work includes a barn renovation in the Hamptons [8] and upstate New York [9], as well as multiple retreat beach homes in the Hamptons [10] [11]. Recent projects shifted the focus from private residential to other architectural categories more publicly accessible. In the educational field the firm designed the interiors for the first Avenues World School [12] [13] (pre-k to 12) in Manhattan. In the hospitality field the firm created the interiors for the public areas of the Public Hotel[14] in Manhattan in collaboration with architects Ian Schrager and Herzog & de Meuron, and the interiors for The Asbury Hotel[15] in Asbury Park, NJ. Besides residential and hospitality work, Bonetti Kozerski [16] [17] [18] [19] designs many commercial and corporate spaces such as Ralph Rucci’s headquarters [20], Ford’s modeling agency [21], Laird + Partner’s ad agency [22], and the newly opened Sant Ambroeus cafe in the Upper East Side [23]. Currently under construction are the New York headquarters and exhibition spaces for Pace Gallery[24], slated for completion in 2019.


Sillaro Valley (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sillaro Valley: If you have further questions about the review, please ask the reviewers, not me, for clarification. That said, yes, please add the secondary sources within the article, using the "Cite" button of the editor. Adding references has nothing to do with neutrality, though. Text like "reputation for being able to work with very creative and strong-minded clients" is not neutral. If this is not clear, please refrain from submitting the article until you understand why that passage is promotional. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Help with the Bonetti Kozerski page?

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I added secondary resources and not mere mentions to the piece for Bonetti/Kozerski. Do they fit for Wikipedia now?

Thank you for your help!

Sillaro Valley (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sillaro Valley, you can use the "Resubmit" button to ask for a new review, if you believe that you have fixed the problems pointed out by four independent reviewers. Please note that I have been none of them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Follow Up with the Bonetti/Kozerski page? Thank you so much!

Heading converted to subheading ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I made changes and resubmitted the Bonetti/Kozerski page for Wiki on August 9, 2019. Have you had a chance to review it? Do you need me to resubmit it? It hopefully fulfills your editorial preferences. Thank you very much! Happy Friday!

SV August 16, 2019

Sillaro Valley (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sillaro Valley, the draft has been, uh, "correctly" submitted for review. I have no idea how to explain that you should submit one draft, and that you should not have two drafts on the same page. Huon has tried to explain this, I have tried to explain this. The text "RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS", for example, currently appears twice on the same page: Draft:Bonetti_Kozerski_Architecture. Why twice? Why not just one text? Edit the page by clicking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bonetti_Kozerski_Architecture&action=edit
  • Remove duplicate text
That's it. Then wait for the review to happen. This can take about 8 weeks. Note that I personally will not review your draft, no matter how often you ask. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Heading converted to subheading

Thank you for your help with this process.

SV

August 16, 2019 Sillaro Valley (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sillaro Valley, thank you very much for doing this. I was very happy about the general format when I had a look at the draft this time. Regarding neutrality/promotion, and regarding references, a reviewer will decide if the article can now be accepted. If not, the reviewer will provide an explanation on your user talk page.
For reviewer convenience, I have re-added the "declined" comments above the article. These do not affect the review result, but they allow reviewers to quickly get an overview of the situation.
The article will be reviewed within about 8 weeks. It can take longer, it can be quicker, it's random. Eight weeks is only an estimation, but it is usually a good estimation. I wish you all the best, a nice weekend and good luck with the draft. Best regards! 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV Westminster

Believe me, Westminster is the classy part of Balga. What, do I have to buy you a plane ticket for you to see for yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.7.115 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 101.118.7.115, Westminster surely can be beautiful, but neither of us two can write this in an encyclopedia as if it were an objective fact. As you have correctly indicated in the heading, Special:Diff/911154798 sadly lacks the neutrality that we need to adhere to when building this encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
For extraordinary efforts to guide people on IRC with respect to conflict of interest editing. Huon (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a thing? 😃 It is so beautiful with its compass design. Huon, thank you very much, you made my day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=911161837"