User talk:ToBeFree

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.

Rollback granted

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

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

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

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, ToBeFree, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Live 8 Philadelphia

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

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't guarantee that it is considered to be relevant to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Notability), but you could try creating a well-written article about your company at Franklin Simon Productions and setting an internal link to that. To encourage this, I have now added an internal link to this yet non-existing page. Maybe that's a solution everyone can be happy about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi-Lift Jack

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

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

Etymology of Golem Edit review

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

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

Evidence with sources:

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

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

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

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

Hi, it might have been the "magick" in your edit that made me remove it. Of course, it has been added in good faith and I should just have removed the typo. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, well then thank you good sir. anon2604:2000:7200:F00:E8FF:E947:4673:C2F (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Golem&type=revision&diff=829241205&oldid=829147558&diffmode=source 13:19, 7 March 2018‎ ToBeFree (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,494 bytes) (-322)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 2604:2000:7200:F00:B98F:48D3:849F:34AE: I disagree, after intensive review. This edit is indeed adding text to a quote that does not exist in the cited article. This modification of a quote is not acceptable.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that your edit and the written text is not lost! You can restore it by copying it from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Golem&type=revision&diff=829241205&oldid=829147558&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(Context: 2018-03-07)

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

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

seven deadly sins (and 1 Corinthians 13:13)

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

March 2018

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

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

Did I revert more than three times? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually seem to have to! I had the Stratosphere history on my screen. Thank you for your warning. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Man nice work.

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

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

Zina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletions

Please be careful of speedy deletion nominations that are too speedy. You tagged Brad McCarthy within 1 minute of its creation. In general, a good rule of thumb is to allow a new article at least 15 minutes, to see if the author has more to add, before tagging for speedy deletion. Moving more quickly than that can seem very bitey. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much - does this also apply to obvious autobiographies? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I understand, because, while autobiographies are discouraged, they are not disallowed outright. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Samantha_Akkineni#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_19_March_2018

Options presented in WP:EPH

G'day,

I'm unsure what your comment " Disagree: I strongly disapprove of this request. See IP talk page." refers to as the only entries on the talk page are warnings. You're aware that edit requests are for making edits and not to get additional privliges right? If they don't have actual changes presented, you can deny it there requesting they provide the changes they wish to make in an x = y format. I'd recommend using WP:EPH to assist with handling edit requests. Cheers — IVORK _Discuss 21:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@IVORK: Hey :) I just wanted to make sure that nobody actually unprotects the article for someone whose only contributions have been disruptive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No dramas, but like I said, per WP:Edit request the purpose of an edit request is for something like Change the word "teh" to "the" in the forth paragraph not a request for unprotection / access to edit. Again, if you install WP:EPH you will get to see all the options in a menu, which makes understanding and dealing with them much easier per the image — IVORK _Discuss 22:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Both the IP and me probably misinterpreted this kind of request to be an unprotection request for the page. I didn't know about the x=y way of suggesting an edit to a protected page; all I saw was someone asking for something they should better not get. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Heh, you replied faster than I could add that paragraph. I'll have a look at EPH; it seems to be a nice way to help new users who care about improving an article but can't do so because the page is locked. I didn't hear about it before. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation

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

@Regent007: Oh, hi! Sorry, I should have pointed out what article I was talking about. You're contributing a lot of useful information to Wikipedia! My message was about the article "Sohail Aman", a Pakistani officer who retired recently - and that information was indeed correct, so thank you again for adding it. Sadly, there had not been any reliable citations about his retirement, and four different users updated the article at the same time, all without adding references. So I added the "Citation needed" tag to the retirement date without actually removing it, and someone with the IP 39.48.215.157 later added a link to this article at Pakistan Observer: [1] This seems to be a good, reliable source.

So the problem has been solved; here's a short timeline of the events:

• 15:14, 16 March 2018‎‎: Unsourced information is added by IP 182.185.187.183
• 21:04, 16 March 2018: Information is improved, but sadly still has no source (this was you )
• (many users add information, nobody adds a source)
• 17:24, 19 March 2018: I notice the problem and add "citation needed" templates
• 05:57, 20 March 2018: Link to reliable source is added by IP 39.48.215.157

The problem here was that unsourced information had been added to a biography of a living person. All users who had been editing the article in that time period have received a little message on their talk page, just like yours. This was not specifically directed against you; I just thought it can't hurt to add it to your page too.

We need to be careful that nobody adds incorrect, maybe libellous or defamatory information to this kind of articles. For this reason, statements that are not backed up by reliable sources normally get deleted as quickly as possible. In this case, I decided not to delete the information because it seemed to be reasonable, didn't appear to be vandalism and has been added and improved by many users at the same time. So I assume that you all have read/heard about this in the local news. Next time, I suggest to simply add a link to your news source, so that everybody can verify the information. You can use "ref"erence tags for this:

Lorem Ipsum, famous singer, has released a new album.<ref>http://example.com/good-news-article</ref>

Hope that helps - have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify

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

Hi :) Talk:Alex Kelly (rapist)#Blanking by User:Jr2019 I'll add a more detailled explanation there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw two edits where they put someone else's name in the article. The article seems adequately sourced. I'd just as soon delete it all-- not a crime blotter.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I requested an explanation on their talk, 'cause you never know.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to look beyond the "disruption" keeping BLP's guidance in mind.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tea forte

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

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. :) Thank you for helping us to improve the article; here is how you can do so:

• Got a new logo? Upload it using the help at Commons:Upload, on Wikimedia Commons Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard
• Replace the old logo link in the Wikipedia article by the new file name, done
• For updating the "weak" content, this is nice, but please disclose your affiliation with the company. You are required to read and understand the following information before further improving the article: Wikipedia:DISCLOSE

Hope this helps. Have a nice day, and feel free to ask if there are any questions left. You left the message at the right place; I'll improve my talk page using a large "New message" button soon! Sorry for the confusion! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, quick correction: Wikimedia Commons is normally the right place for uploading images, but I forgot that it is not for copyrighted logos; your upload should instead go to this page: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your editing abilities

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

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

I need to page changed back immediately

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

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

Explanation

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

Hello, Keen7777. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

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

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

Hello, Keen7777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page International Samaritan have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page has actually been speedy-deleted

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

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

Becky Lynch

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

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

hi please stop doing that

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

^{(User is referring to reversion of vandalism)} No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

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

@KatnissEverdeen: You're welcome! I had also asked for revision deletion of the edit summary in the IRC channel, but nothing happened. I guess this is not considered to be "bad" enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm not really offended by their comment at all so it's no biggie. They're welcome to think I'm a cunt if that's what makes them happy lol. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg Rayburn, Greg Rayburn Birthdate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dane0221: Hey, nice to meet you. :)

Please don't get me wrong – your contributions are welcome, and we want you to enjoy improving Wikipedia. When reverting additions by new users, we need to take care not to discourage them from editing just because they didn't exactly adhere to the policies.

One of our main principles is the "Neutral Point Of View" (NPOV). Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but that can sometimes lead to problems. To maintain a reliable encyclopedia, we need to make sure that especially biographies of living persons adhere to very strict verifiability and neutrality rules. These are described on the following help page:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("WP:BLP")

I will try to explain the issues with writing the following sentence, which you had added to the article: "Mr. Rayburn is a well spoken, humorous conversationalist who enjoys a social bourbon with veterans of the military and anyone with an honest sense of humor."

• "well spoken": subjective; your opinion. Many other people including me might have the same opinion! But that's not relevant to Wikipedia. :)
• "humorous": subjective; your opinion. There's also a nice help article about Original Research.
• "conversationalist": not really neutral either
• "enjoys [something]": Some generally interesting information (maybe not exactly his friendly conversation behavior, but notable hobbies) can indeed be added to an article... if you quote Reliable sources to neutrally prove them.
• "veterans of the military": Unspecific (which military?), not really an encyclopedically relevant detail. Quick explanation: WP:DETAIL
• "anyone with an honest sense of humor": subjective; your opinion.

There was basically no way for me to fix this sentence instead of deleting it.

About the birth date, especially when it is unclear or disputed: Always add a link to a reliable source when changing or adding information. You can easily do so by using the following syntax:

<ref>https://www.example.com/reliable-article.html</ref>

Hope that helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

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

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

Edit to Liv Garfield

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

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

Hi, I honestly appreciate your intention! Just please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Instead, please be bold and remove anything from the article that is not reliably sourced and seems to be promotional. Make sure to explain each removal in the edit summary, so that this is not mistaken to be "vandalism". It's late here, I might have a closer look tomorrow. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up ~ ToBeFree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrtj (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ko Un

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

No problem :)

This seems to be about this edit. I think I can understand why you removed the whole "Controversy" section. This topic is hard to neutrally deal with. I have now read the three articles that are used to prove the Wikipedia section. One of them rather seems to be a commentary to me, but the other two appear to be reliable enough. The Wikipedia section should probably be written in a more neutral way, absolutely only stating proven facts. It should make clear why the accusation is "indirect". It should not use words like "many". It should make a clear explanation where the association to the metoo campaign comes from, because that seems to be relatively far-fetched to me.

Please help us to improve the section instead of deleting it. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ko_Un&diff=835098849&oldid=835093059&diffmode=source ---- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

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

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

5G

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

Context

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

Re:

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

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

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

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

5G

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

copied from ToBeFree's talk page for convenience :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Srobidx All right. Your edits are not wrong, you really improved the article. Thank you very much for your time and work. We just wanted to make sure that you are not, for example, being paid for your edits by a company in this area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ViperSnake151 see above :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Lapin: Controversy

Timeline

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

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

Original message ony my talk page: "Content related to Nicole Lapin"

Dear To. Be. Frei:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

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

@Aharonovlaw: Dear Eyal Aharonov:

Sorry for the confusion, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Your edit summary, "this is a minor edit", made the not-minor edit suspicious to me. You seemed to have been trying to hide this edit from scrutiny. Without stating a reason in the edit summary, you had deleted an entire section of the article. For this reason, I had undone the edit without throughly verifying if the removed information (which was referenced by two media sources, one of which being the NY Times!) was factually correct.

Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, and we really do our best to keep such articles accurate and clear. Of course, nobody here wants libellous allegations to stay. We remove them whenever we notice them, and we carefully deal with reports about such problems. Thank you for helping us to identify such material.

Because your explanation on my talk page seems to be very reasonable, and because the time you've taken to sincerly explain the issue, I understand that you are really here in good faith and see no reason to keep the controversial material in the article. I have undone my edit, as you can verify here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Lapin&diff=834460916&oldid=834457258&diffmode=source

Should another editor re-add the material (click here to view the history), for example by undoing the above-linked edit, please point them to the talk page of the article. You can use the following link to do so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicole_Lapin#Controversy

In an edit summary, you can use the following syntax instead, creating a clickable link: [[Talk:Nicole Lapin#Controversy]]

I will copy our conversation here to the article's talk page, so that other editors can quickly learn and understand why the removed section is problematic in its removed form.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue, and thank you for improving this encyclopedia. I will add a "welcome box" to your user talk page with more links that might be interesting and useful to read.

Best regards

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

2 days later: Response by newly registered / anonymous editor

Nicole Lapin

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

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

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

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

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

Following-Up Regarding Controversy Section - Nicole Lapin

Hi there, again.

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

Your reply is greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

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

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

No worries - waiting on word from you.

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

Following-Up Regarding Controversy Section - Nicole Lapin

@Aharonovlaw: Hi, good to meet you again. :) Some other editors decided to re-add the content; this is a point where I personally am not responsible for the content anymore, and I am in position of a neutral observer. When deciding how to deal with this further, please note that I did my best and the content has been immediately removed by me after you sent me a message. I'll try to explain the current problem and possible steps for you to solve the problem:

• No matter what exactly you decide to do, the best first step to collect information and get an overview is to have a close look at the edit history of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Lapin&action=history

• There is a help entry trying to explain all the overwhelming information that can be seen there: Help:Page_history

• Having had a quick look at the help entry myself, to be honest, the help entry itself is quite overwhelming in my opinion. :) Here's an easy first start:

• Click the "prev" link next to the uppermost entry in the list. In this moment, this is probably the edit made by 209.201.10.130.

• The change that has been introduced by this edit is shown on the right. It is compared to the previous version of the article, which is shown on the left.

• Normally, we see an edit summary here. There is none, the editor left no comment in the little "edit history" comment box. However, they added an explanation to the talk page of the article.

• The editor who has re-introduced the information has not been logged in, and they have been editing as 209.201.10.130 (talk). The explanation has been added to the talk page on 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC). The edit has been added to the article on 14:34, 7 April 2018. We can see that the edit has been done without explanation, which then came later, to the talk page. That's not the recommended way to do it, but probably not an issue itself.

• The IP address 209.201.10.130 is a shared enterprise network IP address registered to LANIGAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. As a lawyer, you might be tempted to send them a letter. I wouldn't be able to stop you from doing so, but taking off-wiki action against a Wikipedia editor is extremely discouraged and should only be an absolute last resort. Issuing legal threats, specifically, will (not can: will) cause you to be blocked from Wikipedia editing for as long as the threat is in the air. This is not meant to be a punishment - the exact reasons and policies about this kind of escalation are described here: Wikipedia:No legal threats

• If discussion on the article talk page really leads to nothing, there is a way for article subjects to ask for help: Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects

• Specifically, in this case, I think that this means:

• The discussion has now indeed reached a point where I, in your situation, would send a message to the Wikipedia Help Desk. You can do so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new

• The people reading the Help Desk question will likely have no background information about the previous conflict. Here are two links you can (and should, in my opinion) add to your help request to help them understand the problem:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicole_Lapin#Controversy

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Nicole_Lapin:_Controversy

• I have created a little timeline of the events in the second link. Also, the whole conversation is archived there. It's the link to my talk page, but to the specific section they need to have a look at.

• What can happen next?

• I personally see three possible outcomes of this situation:

• The problem is resolved in the way you wanted it to be resolved.

• A compromise is found. The section might be rewritten (please do not do this yourself - not because you wouldn't be able to, but because other editors will likely not trust you to be neutral in this case ).

• The situation is not resolved in any way acceptable for you or your client.

• Let's hope that the latter case doesn't happen. I am not a lawyer, but the chances of legally, using off-wiki action, successfully resolving a dispute on Wikipedia, are - as far as I have read in various media - abysmal. Many before have tried to solve problems that way - but even national intelligence agencies have failed: Censorship of Wikipedia#France

As a conclusion, in a nutshell: The next logical step is sending a detailled, calm message to the help desk, including the two links I've mentioned above.

After having sent your message, it will appear at Wikipedia:Help Desk, and all further answers will go there.

I hope that I could help you – I really did my best. And no matter how this case ends, I wish you a good day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your insight!

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

Your time is very much appreciated.

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

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

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

Further discussion of controversy section

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

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

• It is true that Lapin was mentioned in two NY Times articles as one of many well known people who purchased fake twitter followers. But in each case it was a 1-line mention in a list of "influencers" who have allegedly made such purchases, with no details. The Times does not state specifically where the info on Lapin comes from, but much of the info in the articles is said to come from the records o the company selling these 'bots". How reliable that is hard t say. A third cite was to an interview with Lapin. This had no content relevant to the issue, and I have removed it. There is a quoted response from lapin, but this is currently uncited. I have marked it with a {{cn}} tag. I think the sourcing on this is a bit weak from a WP:BLP standpoint. Does anyone have better sources or a view on the matter? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @ToBeFree, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: your input would be welcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DES, you're a godsend. :) Until now, unregistered and newly registered users have basically been long-time edit warring here, each of them in good faith. In this light, it makes me a little sad to see that the Controversy paragraph has been deleted again before consensus is reached. On the other hand, when dealing with negative content on the biography of a living person, I think that additions should be carefully looked at. Good-faith deletions, even with a conflict of interest, might often be less problematic than unsourced additions.

About the citation with the CN tag, that seems to come from an interview available here: http://celebrityfashionista.com/checking-in-with-fashionista-and-financial-expert-nicole-lapin/

I have no idea if that's a reliable source, though. Is it a fashion shop with a little blog next to it? The article footer "To find out more about Nicole, visit NicoleLapin.com or follow her on Twitter and Instagram @NicoleLapin", in my opinion, might be indicating a website accepting paid articles and article-like advertisements. The NY Times would probably not write that below one of their articles.

For this specific type of quote, "Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating", however, even a message from her official Twitter account would probably be a valid source. If I understand correctly, there is no reason to believe that this quote is inaccurate, and Aharonovlaw is probably not contesting the authenticity of this specific quote. It just made no sense to keep it when removing the whole context. Is this correct? @Aharonovlaw

About the first part of the section: Better sources for the accusations are probably hard to find - the New York Times created an original article there. "Reporting was contributed by Manuela Andreoni, Jeremy Ashkenas, Laurent Bastien Corbeil, Nic Dias, Elise Hansen, Michael Keller, Manuel Villa and Felipe Villamor. Research was contributed by Susan C. Beachy, Doris Burke and Alain Delaquérière."

Maybe let's have a closer look at the exact text the discussion seems to be about:

"Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence." (1) (2)

Reference link 1 is indeed accidentally broken here by @Javert2113: using the ProveIt tool. This was later used as a somehow unconventional excuse for this edit. I would have tried to fixed the link instead.

Reference link 2 quotes reference link 1 in a not really encyclopedic way. It might have a reason to stay for context because the "uncited" interview (see above) refers to "Perez Hilton" instead of the NY Times.

• "One of many": Positive, isn't it? She wasn't the only one, that's a positive message to me.

• "celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians": Positive. Same here: Even sports stars (god beware, idols!) did this. She's just one of many.

• "outed": "Outing" implies revealing something that has previously been hidden. This could be sexual orientation, a social taboo, or secret activities. "Controversy" and "outing" are two words belonging together, so at least some people will view "outed" things as being negative.

• "allegedly": Positive. Questions the validity of the source.

• "purchasing": Neutral

• "fake": Neutral unless you know a "more" neutral word. It has a negative connotation, of course, but these followers have not been real individuals, and they have been using fake, stolen identities.

• "followers": Neutral term used by the Twitter UI itself.

• "social media network": Neutral, widely used term to describe Twitter.

• "some of whom used information stolen from real people": It is clear to me that, no matter how accurate the list of celebrities in the NY Times article is, this specific statement is strongly sourced by a reliable source. It's not in a footnote, it is the Times article's main topic.

• "in order to overstate her following and influence": (Emphasis mine.) Biased. Delete or modify. "Their", referring to the whole group, might be neutral enough. There is no source for this sentence when personally attributing it to one of the people in the list. We can't know if that was really the reason for Nicole Lapin to be involved in this matter.

Next, we need to make sure that the following two sentences, which are put together in a logical order, do really belong to each other: WP:SYNTH

• Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence.

• Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating, "I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era."

This seems to be the case, as this article containing the second quote explicitly refers to the first sentence:

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

Before continuing to decide what to do with the "Controversy" section, can we - both those wanting to have it removed, and those wanting to keep it - agree that this analysis is accurate? Are there mistakes in my analysis? Please point them out, as we might use this as a base to decide what to do next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ToBeFree. First, apologies: I must have accidentally broken that link in my haste to iron out the reference itself. Whoops. Second, I have no horse in this race, but your analysis seems spot-on to this editor. Finally, if better sources could be found, I'd appreciate that. And one last thing: thank you so much for your hard work and dedication to this topic. Really. It bodes well for the future of the Wikipedia project. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: Your input would be appreciated on the above analysis. Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that clarifies and respectfully addresses the above.

Most respectfully,

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DESiegel: Yes, that's understandable – My reply was mainly referring to another factor: Consensus to remove the section among these who originally fought for its inclusion. The edit war seems to have been resolved peacefully.

In the interest of not censoring Wikipedia, someone who wants to have the NY Times mention included somewhere in the article could probably add it to the "Career" section, just as Aharonovlaw suggested himself, if I understand correctly. When doing so, please have a look at my analysis again and modify/delete at least the part identified as "Biased." by me. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a platform to be abused for mudslinging. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

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

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

Tech News: 2018-15

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

Recent changes

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

Problems

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

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

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

Future changes

• The iOS and Android apps will get synced reading lists later in April.

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

18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

HACC, Central Pennsylvania's Community College

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

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

@Mpsaylor: Hi, nice to meet you. :) Sorry, but I can not find the disclosure information that you added "in the description". Which of your contributions are you referring to? Have you really already read the links that I have provided on your talk page as an attempt to explain the problem?

From HACC's IP range, and by other users with a possible conflict of interest, multiple biased edits have been done to the article in the past, and you seem to be continuing a questionable chain of promotional edits made from your institution to the Wikipedia article describing your institution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

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

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

Thank you for your message.

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

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

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

I am completely in the dark

the picture right before

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

Perhaps the word "Zildjan" ? What? Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And I just found this note from you, "so where is the original photo if it is yours?" What the f**k is that supposed to mean? "if it is yours?" Carptrash (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Calm down please. I am currently uploading as many images from en.wikipedia.org to commons.wikimedia.org as possible, and because some of the already transferred images turned out to be copyright violations, I was told to be more careful than I was before. So I'm now really carefully checking whether it is plausible that the uploader really has the rights to release it under a free license.

Your image is a derivative of a larger photo. You either downscaled it, or you cut out a part of it. The EXIF data says that it has been created using a PENTAX X-5 camera, and that camera has a 16 megapixel sensor. The uploaded image has 1,000 × 750 pixels, file size: 107 KB. What happened here? It would be nice if you could take a moment to explain this in the file description. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Calm down? A photo of mine that I took and posted 5 years ago is suddenly up for speedy deletion? Yeah, I probably photos hoped it, it might have been one of those huge 48" X 64" pictures that I sized down. So that makes it derivative? I suspect that when you were told to be more careful this is NOT what the teller had in mind. Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: "Delayed". A normal deletion discussion usually also lasts a week, so there is nothing extremely speedy with this "delayed speedy deletion". There is really no need to panic.

The copyright rules on Commons and Wikipedia exist to protect your rights as a photographer. Imagine someone else took this downsized version of your image from your website, and uploaded it as "own work" on Wikipedia. This happens. All I'm trying is to make sure that you have actually taken this photo. A short notice like "Original photo taken by me, downsized for easier upload" or something like that in the "Source" field of the image would be nice. When adding it, you can also delete the deletion notice and my comment, as the possible issue is then completely resolved.

About being more careful, well, we've even had self-made "oil paintings" that turned out to be digital manipulations of stolen images. Feel free to have a look at my talk page on Wikimedia Commons to see what has been nominated for deletion so far. I was surprised, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Just one additional note - I have been called "naïve" today for believing someone who explicitly wrote: "Photograph taken by me at the opening of Kunsthaus Zurich October 2011" below an image with unclear copyright status. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are many worse things to be called than "naive." On wikipedia we are told to "assume good faith." I would suggest that in order to reconcile these two that you check out the editors involved. There are lots of clues to be found. Remember editing wikipedia is rarely about how quickly things need to get done as opposed to how to get it right. Carptrash (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: That's nice. Thank you. You made me believe in good faith again. I wish you a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we are friends now I can casually point out that the other woman in the picture is my wife who also appears, unnamed, here and here Carptrash (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah :D - and now she can proudly say that she appears in multiple Wikipedia articles ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Regarding your "warning"

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

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

Thank you for your explanation. mrloop (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

29 December 2024

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

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

Nemesis revert

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

Nevermind, it was my bad BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

When I had a quick look again, I almost thought the same! :D Thank you for the message. Better one too much than one too less ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-16

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

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

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

Future changes

• The new PDF renderer could not create PDFs from books. Books are in this case collections of pages on a Wikimedia wiki. PediaPress will take over development of the books-to-PDF function. [12]
• Pywikibot will no longer support Python 2.7.2 and 2.7.3. [13]
• Volunteer developers can fill out the Wikimedia Communities and Contributors survey. The last day is April 22 (UTC). This is a third-party service survey. See the privacy statement.

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

15:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Solar cycle 25

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

Really? I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Solar cycle 25. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Any reflection on (Solar Cycle 25) substance instead of (Wikipedia) procedure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.161.117 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

→ Talk:Solar_cycle_25 ← There please. Not here, there. It's really that easy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No reflection. Emptiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.161.117 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the edit war on that page about the shrine :) Eamesheard (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eamesheard: Oh, thank you very much! Happy to help! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

_{(Hujr ibn 'Adi article, around 2018-04-10, 21:33) ~ ToBeFree}

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your devoted and meritorious efforts to resolve the particular N—— L—— affair, done with wit, grace, and a lawyer's precision of word and phrase, it is my pleasure to award you this Barnstar of Diplomacy. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: also, tell me how you got your barnstars placed on your User page, as top icons, sometime? Thanks. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Javert2113: This is a heart-warming late-evening surprise and makes this night a beautiful night for me – and I can't thank you enough for all the time you spend on finding COI/paid-editing cases like this one, and helping a lot to resolve them as peacefully and consensual as possible. It is always a pleasure to see your name appearing on a talk page.

About the technical question, oh, I took some time to figure out a way that makes this as easy as possible. I wondered how some users do it, and first had a look at Oshwah's page, which is beautiful and has inspired me to create the talk page button at the top of this talk page. For the icons at the top, it uses multiple-level transclusions and detailled syntax in an own template in his userspace... There had to be an easier way for my 2 stars! So I pretty much entered “user top icon wikipedia” in Google, and tada! Template:Top_icon - this is really easy to use, feel free to copy the syntax from the bottom of my user page. I have put it there because it technically makes no difference where it appears in the code, but putting it at the bottom makes it easy to maintain and keeps the rest of the code easy to read. When it becomes a huuuge list of over 100 awards, you might want to take more sophisticated solutions like Oshwah's one instead, but I am far away from that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Double Negative

Original message by ToBeFree on Syedmqo's talk page:

Hi :) One question

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

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

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

Yes brother sorry, I will make that edit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedmqo (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Brother, it isn't white people not being allowed. It is non Muslims are not allowed. There are white Muslims as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedmqo (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Syedmqo: But that's exactly what I meant. You clarified here on my talk page: non muslims are not allowed. Your edit, however, was: 'no muslim' people were permitted. That's not the same, it's the opposite! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: Before correcting the edit, please make sure that your wording is really given by the source, "Marable, pp. 327–328." & "Goldman, p. 170." -- you're essentially modifying a text quoted from two books, and you need to make sure that you're not putting your words in someone else's mouth. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User 86.180.234.145 Not Editing In Good Faith

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

@Finktron: Thank you :) Without the relevant background information, and without deeper knowledge of the WWII flier subject, I assumed good faith when reverting the strange edit. I only revert something without using the edit summary if the vandalism is indisputable and obvious; that wasn't the case for me personally here. I rarely add "Vandalism" to the edit summary because it could be wrong and then permanently stays there.

The IP had no warnings on their page, further contributing to the "good faith" image. Please warn users, especially when you think that they are vandalizing. They will probably not be blocked by an administrator unless they have been properly warned. To do so easily, you can use Twinkle, or manually have a look at these two pages:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (without preview)
• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates (with preview)

Also note that Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing is not necessarily vandalism, and labelling the wrong person as "vandal" can be construed as personal attack against another editor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll follow these instructions in the future. Before adding the "vandal" tag I did however look through their edit history and see that all names added to various pages were clearly inserts from Jo-Jo's Bizarre Adventure. That doesn't qualify as "disruptive editing" per Wiki's definition, since it's not POV, OR, advocacy or self-promotion. In this case the IP action specifically falls under WP:HOAXES. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Finktron: You're right, of course. This user vandalized the page and I lacked information to see what you already knew. Thank you again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-17

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

Recent changes

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

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

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

Future changes

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

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

18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Managing a conflict of interest

Hello,

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

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

Oh! Hello, thank you very much for taking the time to explain the situation.

The second page you have linked to is an essay on civility. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

I was unsure about your contributions. Edits like this one can sometimes indicate an employee's attempt to enforce trademark capitalization, sometimes not in accordance with MOS:TMCAPS. You can find a past example of such a case here: User talk:ToBeFree#Hi-Lift Jack. The "ProBoards" capitalization, now that I have a look at this again, seems to be perfectly okay, though! I was probably overcautious here.

Removal of an entire criticism section about the same company also made me raise an eyebrow. This was the edit that made me have a closer look at the page and the previous edits. You seem to be right about the removal, however, and I have not undone or meant to criticize this contribution.

To be honest, I am somehow surprised by the general appearance of your message. I'd like to note that to me, there seems to be a slight discrepancy between the number of contributions ever submitted from this IP address and the well-researched, sophisticated response on my talk page. I'm writing this because it might help to clear a misunderstanding on my part: To me, it looked as if your first contributions to Wikipedia have been made to the ProBoards article. If I had known that you are already very familiar with our detailled, complex policies and guidelines, I would of course not have informed you about something you already know.

When writing "We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article ProBoards, you may have a conflict of interest (COI)", I have not been assuming bad faith. If it has looked like an accusation, I am honestly sorry for that. I always assume good faith, even if an editor actually turns out to have a strong conflict of interest. This might sound weird to you -- but let me try to give you an extreme example: Imagine someone removing negative statements from the article about a beloved person. In a well-meant attempt to help someone else, they are acting in best faith. None of them is intending to harm the project; they are just sometimes unaware of whether or how much their affiliation has influenced their editing.

The COI information message on your talk page has not been meant as a kind of accusation, especially not of bad faith. It was meant to serve an entirely different purpose: To inform someone who seemed to be new to the encyclopedia about some possibly relevant policies, and maybe to invite them to responding with a quick, simple clarification. I personally, in your situation, would simply have responded on the IP talk page, with the words:

"Hi, I am aware of these policies and do not work for the company. I receive no compensation for my edits; this might have been a false alarm."

And maybe, when wondering about the reason, I would have added:

"Could you explain why you think that I might have a conflict of interest here?"

So -- please, and if it's just to explain this to people who might make the same wrong assumptions as I did -- could you write something like that below the message on your talk page? When you did, the "possible conflict of interest" case has been nicely solved. Feel free to remove my message from your talk page then; it is not meant to denounce or expose you. Adding a little statement below it before clearing the page hopefully ensures that nobody re-adds the message later.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

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

Archive copy of a talk page discussion that made me happy

Pages to look at when reading this archive entry

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

• User:John_doe123456987, User talk:John_doe123456987
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_doe123456987&action=history
• User_talk:Djumbo75
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djumbo75&action=history
• Talk:Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire&action=history
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire&action=history

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

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

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

April 2018

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

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Benjamin Charles-Lemaire was changed by John doe123456987 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956031 on 2018-04-28T23:42:48+00:00 .

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

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

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

Djumbo75's talk page

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

Messages originally sent to John doe123456987

Article for Deletion

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

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

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

Welcome

Welcome message by Nanophosis (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Djumbo75, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

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

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

---

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

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

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

Any relation to User:John doe123456987?

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, that's a good reason. I'll deal with the rest. I assume you have no e-mail address set for the previous account, so that you can not restore the password via e-mail? One more reason to add an e-mail address to your current one. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah! I would not fail to do so, thank you very much for ur attention :) Plz how long for this article to be deleted from EN WP? Okay, this has nothing to do but I really like your piano videos ;) TY. Have a nice day ToBeFree (Djumbo75 (talk))

Thank you, and you're welcome. No problem. Deletion discussions usually last a week. This might seem like a long time, but it ensures that we can get a solid consensus about deletion or keeping. When the article is deleted, it may not be simply added to Wikipedia again. To avoid mistakes, a week of discussion seems to be quite okay, I think. Oh, and thank you! I didn't expect anyone to actually watch this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

on the French wikipedia, the article has been removed in two days for lack of eligibility and on the global in 4 days: http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire bcuz the person who created it was the author of his page and I think he will constantly restore it as in his country unfortunately :(

Yes, I needed to relax tonight, your piano tunes are relaxing tee-hee :)

Oooh - now I finally understand what Wikimonde is. It is a Wikipedia mirror! I personally would suggest using the original French Wikipedia instead, where you can easily edit all pages and contribute own text!

Hehe, that's cool, thanks. Good night! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Benjamin Charles-Lemaire

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

Discussion between Tifftiff1234 and Djumbo75 on my talk page

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

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

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

Please STOP spamming and answering everything that doesnt concern. You're just trying to do what you did on WikiPlus Monde. An you know you where like every fake account you add, admin said it :

Here in conclusions http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire

Here before an anonymouse account with no contributions deleted it : http://plus.wikimonde.com/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikimonde:Bistro&diff=prev&oldid=851101

All accounts you used to spam the page are blocked, it's actually written here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Nesquik.prod or here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/AJ and also here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Fm790

You're just trying to do exactly the same things : spamming and war editing, hoping that everybody will be bored and delete the article. But just tell us what are so involved in suppressing article about this specific person ? We were like 5/6 working on the draft, and you never came. You said that it's not neutral, promotional or have juridical issues, if so that's not a reason for deletion but for banners and improvment. Feel free to write more, add stuff.

If it's a source problem, feel free to delete primary sources and only let secondary sources, because there are like dozen secondary sources :

https://www.google.fr/search?q=%22benjamin+lemaire%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR781FR781&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX286F4d_aAhWOL1AKHYbQAaUQ_AUICigB&biw=1056&bih=718

https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR781FR781&biw=1056&bih=718&ei=6N_lWoPjGYzRwALgnYOYDw&q=different+lemaire+transgender+festival&oq=different+lemaire+transgender+festival&gs_l=psy-ab.3...226.796.0.877.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..8.0.0....0.hT8WAKbRCaM

Now please just respect rules of debate and WP rules. Tifftiff1234 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

OMG this is totally crazy, answer deleted this answer and is vandalising every pages linking to the subjet... Wtf is that ? Tifftiff1234 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

NOW STOP ! This is the 2nd time user deleting my comments here, while he's not included in conversation ! Tifftiff1234 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

All accounts you used to spam the page are blocked to Tifftiff1234, it's actually written here http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/liloula or IP here on WP,

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

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

Aftermath: SPI blocks

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

• 20:27, 29 April 2018 Plantinaute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).
• 20:27, 29 April 2018 Martingally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).
• 20:27, 29 April 2018 Tifftiff1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).

• 20:27, 29 April 2018 Royalhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).
• 20:28, 29 April 2018 John doe123456987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).
• 20:28, 29 April 2018 Djumbo75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (abuse of multiple accounts, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djumbo75).

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

Aftermath: The article has actually been deleted, speedily.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Charles-Lemaire

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

Tech News: 2018-18

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

Recent changes

• The parameter for unpatrolled edits in recent changes filters changed name. You might need to update saved filters and links. [17]

Problems

• We are migrating wikis from Tidy to Remex. Because of a bug the 250 wikis which do not yet use Remex were switched on 23 April. This is two months early. This meant that pages with broken wikitext showed wrongly to readers. The bug was undone the next day. You can help fix broken wikitext to avoid this problem when your wiki switches. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. You can follow the process on Phabricator. [18]

Changes later this week

• You will be able use CodeMirror in the 2017 wikitext editor on all wikis. CodeMirror helps with syntax highlighting. It has previously been a beta feature and only available on wikis with scripts that are written from left to right. [19]
• When an administrator blocks someone they will have a calendar they can use to choose when the block ends. This is to make it easier to pick a specific date. [20]
• You can soon turn on the Performance Inspector in the Editing section in your preferences. It shows information about the performance of pages. This could be the size of modules in the page, how many CSS selectors are defined on the page and how many are used, or the size of the images on the page. This tool is intended to help editors fix pages that load slowly. [21]
• There is a new abuse filter function called equals_to_any. You can use it to check if its first argument is equal (===) to any of the following ones. For example you can use it to check if the page's namespace is amongst a given set of values in a more compact way than you could earlier. You can read more on mediawiki.org.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 May. It will be on all wikis from 3 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 1 May at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 2 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Cloud Services team is working on a new project called Toolhub. The goal is to make it easier for Wikimedians to discover software tools they can use. You can leave feedback on the talk page or email jharewikimedia.org to leave private feedback.
• All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in all namespaces will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 2 May. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Wikibooks wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch on 9 May. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. [22][23][24]

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

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Error?

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

(talk page stalker) @DiamondGamer lite: Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources in other Wikipedia articles, because this could lead to circular referencing (WP:REFLOOP). RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondGamer lite: Hi -- the second undo has not been made by me: (diff link)

The reason that it has been removed again is probably that a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. Please have a look at WP:RS, then feel free to add your information with a reliable source again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha, thanks @RA0808: you have been faster ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Elias Edit

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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

Hey, thank you, but you don't need to convince me on my talk page. Just add that link to your edit! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the first and third link as references and restored your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elias_(wrestler)&diff=839041499&oldid=839039465&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Message sent to 24.212.253.184's talk page

Done :)

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

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

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

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

Grammar

^{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)}

...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)

^{(This specific message is probably about the following edit: [1] ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)}

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)

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)

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)
^{*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)}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please sign your posts: "~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope I was able to address the quote problems pointed out by you. See diff. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits on The Boy And The Beast

Hello,

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

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

@Shadowrizer135: Oh hey! Welcome to Wikipedia! -- If I understand correctly, this is about an edit about 1 month ago, which was helpful but also happened to remove an infobox. Please don't worry! Mistakes happen, and this might even have been caused by a technical issue. You have used the visual editor; maybe it has/had a bug. It has also been a "mobile edit"; I personally think that the visual editor is not really useful on a mobile phone. Trying to use it on my phone has also caused problems in the past; I am now directly editing the source code of the page instead. This is easier than it might sound!

Don't let the accident stop you; if anything goes wrong, it can be easily undone without any hassle. The version history of each article allows you and other editors to quickly undo any mistakes, and to have a closer look at all edits that happened in the past. This is how I was able to restore the good part of your edit, and if I missed something, feel free to re-add all your improvements.

I'll add a welcome box to your talk page, containing some links and cookies. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia - thank you for registering an account, and becoming part of this huge community. The amount of rules and guidelines might seem to be overwhelming at the beginning, but it all boils down to this: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. If there are any questions, feel free to ask me for help on my talk page whenever you like to. Alternatively, you might like to have a look at our wonderful Teahouse, where experienced editors are happily waiting for new editors to guide through the large world of Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

@Shadowrizer135: You have never been forbidden from editing! I'm sorry if my message back then made it appear as if your contributions would be unwanted. Feel free to go ahead and edit whatever you like!

About the iPad, ah, that does at least have a large display. It might be less problematic than my small smartphone display. To avoid any possible problems, I personally would recommend using the "Edit source" button instead of the default "Edit" button. In your preferences, you can also make this the default, if you like to.

About signing edits, that's only a thing on talk pages; edits to articles should not be signed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

XECD-AM edits (XHECD-FM)

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

@Raymie: Hi Thank you -- but I have not reverted the edit only because of the image link. I have reverted it because it added this text to the article body:

Pagina web www.laromantica.com.mx y nuevo logo de año 2018 La Romántica 1170 am y 92.9 fm la música de tú corazón http://www.radiorama.mx/images/fotos/591_XHECD.png

Good faith, yes -- constructive in this form, no. Thank you very much for taking the time to actually fix it! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, of course. The editor doesn't know English and obviously he's not very familiar with infoboxes. Raymie (t • c) 04:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Explain me!

Hi @ToBeFree:,

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

Hi Siddiqsazzad001

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

Insult in the lede again

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

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

Sorry, clicked the wrong button and meant this to be on the article took. I'll copy there. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
@Objective3000: Hi I am unsure about this. Your IBM example does not seem to correctly portray the situation, as "Intentionally Braindamaged Machinery" would be libellously implying that IBM intentionally produces bad hardware. "Digital Rights Management" vs. "Digital Restrictions Management", however, are two viewpoints that both can not be factually disproven to be correctly describing DRM. Rights are being managed, or restrictions are being managed - that's subjective. One might even go as far as saying that "rights" is an equally biased term here, just as "restrictions" is. Both are not really neutral. Also, compared to the IBM example, the number of people and articles actually using the other term appears to be notable to me. Even if it is a factually wrong term (which I have not seen any proof about yet!), if it is very widespread, it might well be suitable for inclusion in the lead section of the article. Instead of completely deleting it and having a long-time edit war with other editors, it might be more productive to attempt to find a consensual solution, which could - my suggestion - be including the term in the lead section and appropriately explaining the context and reasoning behind it.

About me personally, I would prefer not to get deeply involved in this issue, I just stumbled upon the revert and decided to add a third, hopefully neutral opinion, as a thought-provoking impulse to an otherwise probably never ending conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your neutral opinion is not at all neutral and if you don't want to be involved, you probably should have used this talk page instead of entering an edit war. The snarky definition of DRM was created by the founder of an organization that is against copyright and every use of the term that I have found traces back to him. It’s simply an insult. OTOH, the correct definition is found in numerous patents. Insult terms are often mentioned in RS. But, we do not put AKA Crooked Hillary or AKA Angry Creamsicle in the Clinton or Trump articles because they are simply insults, not real names. Opponents often use nasty nicknames. I've deleted over 30 from the President's nicknames article. They certainly don't belong in the first sentence of an article. If we neeed to discuss this once again, I suggest reversion during discussion as per WP:BRD. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"The founder of an organization that is against copyright" -- You might be referring, wrongly, to Richard Stallman? If so, I'd like to correct that the whole "free software" principle, and copyleft licenses like the one Wikipedia uses as a foundation for its existence as a free encyclopedia, are based and relying on copyright. Stating that someone is "against copyright" does not appear to be a factual analysis, and in this specific case, it is really objectively and verifiably wrong.

I also do not believe that using "restrictions" in place of "rights" is "simply an insult"; there are actually being restrictions applied by DRM. It can also be argued that DRM is a "rights management" -- why would any of both terms be "wrong" or "right", based on any other criterion than usage frequency in media? Frequently used terms can be biased just as well as non-frequently-used terms can be.

About BRD, please have a look at What BRD is not -- specifically, it is "never a reason for reverting".

When I wrote that I would prefer not to get deeply involved into this, I really meant it, and I won't protest if you revert my edit. If my attempt to find a peaceful compromise does not appear to solve the problem, please remove it. I'm just afraid that keeping on reverting might not lead to anything but a page protection, which would not necessarily preserve your own preferred version of the page. Without considering that there might be a "middle course" that everyone can be happy about, you two might still be edit-warring next year. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say I was quite correct about Stallman looking at the bankruptcies he has caused. Yes, he is in favor of free software, as am I when the author wishes it to be free. I’ve been giving away software for over a half century. But, he goes much farther. And yes, BRD is never a “reason” for deletion. But, it is a process that calls for discussion after reversion, not reinstating reverted text without discussion or edit-warring. While I thank you for trying to find a compromise, I do not see your suggestion as a middle course. We don’t even include derogatory terms in the first sentence in that article about a German with the toothbrush mustache. (Trying to avoid Godwin’s law.) We don’t put derogatory snarks or criticisms at the start of an article. On your suggestion that I revert, that would be edit-warring, which I never do. It would also violate 3RR. Thus, I again suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I respect your arguments and decision. I'm reverting my edit myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Tech News: 2018-19

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

Recent changes

• The Wikimedia Commons mobile app has a new version. It is now easier to find nearby places that need pictures. It helps you with direct uploads and title and category suggestions. The app only works on Android phones. [25]

Problems

• The abuse filters had a problem with blocks where you had changed how long they last. It used the default length everywhere. This was in late April. Abuse filter users should make sure the right block length is used and change them if needed. This is only for filters where how long blocks last had been changed. [26]

Changes later this week

• The advanced search function beta feature will be on all Wikimedia wikis. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist. [27]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 May. It will be on all wikis from 10 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 8 May at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 9 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 16 May. Other wikis will switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. [28][29]

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

16:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold! No, ToBeFree made it for me :) Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 14:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Haha thanks! @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: You can easily add one to your own talk page, with any colors and images you like: Template:User new message large ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Trolling?

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

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

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

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

Eoghan McDermott Article

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

@Cmonccccmongogo: Add a reliable source please, especially when editing biographies of living persons. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cmonccccmongogo: Additional note: Do you really believe this edit to be constructive and helpful? Or this one? Or this one? Maybe this one? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for being one step ahead of me on reverting vandalism! Safety Cap (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safety Cap: Oh hey, thank you very much! You seem to be interested in using recent change patrolling tools, having tried out IGLOO, having been granted rollback and using Twinkle a lot. Have you tried Huggle yet? You seem to meet all requirements needed to use it, and it might have changed a lot since the last time you gave it a try! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'll have to check it out again — Safety Cap (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks for creating Alte Brücke (Frankfurt), ToBeFree!

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

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

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

Learn more about page curation.

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

lol

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

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

LAST TEST BEFORE RELEASE

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

May 2018

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

ToBeFree What are you doing exactly? The excessive warnings are messing with huggle. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Alright, alright. I think the new config can go live without further tests. It's been a month now.

More information can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Huggle/Config.yaml ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

removing my edits

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

Hi :) You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_Opara&diff=prev&oldid=841211372&diffmode=source

If you really wonder why this kind of edits is not appreciated on Wikipedia, please have a look at the following pages:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Neutral point of view
• Biographies of living persons
• Identifying reliable sources.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hello, ToBeFree! I'm just here to thank you for all your help with new editors, and also to say that I'm borrowing some of your wiki mark-up. I hope you don't mind! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Javert2113, thank you very much for the beer! :D Nice to meet you again. I think some days ago, we "saw" each other in a version history and greeted each other with a "Thanks". That was funny; it reminded me of what bus/taxi drivers do when they see each other on the street. About the markup, take whatever you like! It makes me proud and happy to see it being reused. Especially the new message button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and I wanted to thank you for your efforts on that page, too, fellow bus/taxi driver! And I'll be sure to help myself to a lot of the mark-up, then! Thanks again for doing the awesome stuff you do! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused.

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

(talk page stalker) Hi, it's not that we don't want current information, it's just that we fear you may have a conflict of interest: per WP:COI, given your employment status, it is possible that you're (a) being paid to make these edits; (b) receiving some sort of compensation, pecuniary aside, to edit; (c) subject to such a relationship that your editing may or might appear to have some sort of bias or otherwise be untoward; (d) adding promotional or otherwise unencyclopedic content to the page; or (e) being coerced by some means or another to make your edits to the page. While we appreciate your edits, noting that Lakeview Centennial received several Academic Distinctions, for example, in the past several years is more something for the local newspaper to report, not an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? (I will not mention the primary sourcing issue, though that is an issue.)

Likewise, we don't mind uncontroversial edits, such as removing vandalism, per WP:COIU; but the general matter is that Wikipedia is a volunteer effort by unbiased editors editing pages where they don't have conflicts of interest: imagine if I'm the paid Wikipedia editor of Company X, and I edited Wikipedia's page on Company X. I could say that Company X makes the best widgets in the world, and Company Y makes horrible, shoddy ones that break on the first use. With Wikipedia's stature on the Internet, as one of the most-viewed sites in the world, the whole world could read that, even if I'm lying, using terrible sources, or causing a ruckus with other editors. All those situations should be avoided, right?

The gist of it is this: the COI rule is to guard against the appearance of impropriety on Wikipedia articles, by having editors declare their actual conflicts of interest on talk pages and/or in edit summaries. That's it. I hope that clarifies matters for you. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

^{(Hehe, Javert2113 was a little faster than me and has nicely summarized this. I'll send my drafted answer as well, anyway) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)}

Hi CflemLCHS. We do value your contributions, especially when they're updating outdated articles that contained wrong information. That itself is not a problem, it is a welcome help!

It can, however, be unintendedly problematic when these contributions are directly made to the article by someone closely affiliated with the article subject. In this case, you as a teacher seem to be happy about your job. You receive money for teaching at this school -- not necessarily directly from the school itself, but definitely for working there.

Please note that we do assume good faith for all of your edits. Nobody thinks that you'd be doing this in a malicious way; we understand that you are a friendly person just trying to help, and that is normally a very good thing. However, to quote the Conflict Of Interest (COI) guideline, editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. This sentence summarizes the whole "conflict" nicely, I think.

In this specific case, what I noticed is that:

• You have removed an information box that was meant to neutrally indicate a possible conflict of interest. This information box had been added by Plandu, another Wikipedia editor. They have not undone your contributions in any way, they just tried to make clear that the article needs to be checked for statements that are not neutral (see WP:NPOV) and that might appear to be promotional (see WP:PROMO) or not adhering to our external links guideline (see WP:EL).
• You have added external links and what appears to be promotional content to the article, especially with this edit: Diff 841200506/prev
• You appear to have decided, yourself, that an issue described as "the article reads like an advertisement" has been solved by your edits and have removed the respective imformation template from the article.

These edits are unlikely to be considered neutral and objective by other readers; specifically, the neutrality has been questioned by Plandu and me personally.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to solve the problem: Simply suggest your corrections on the article's talk page. This allows other editors to verify the neutrality and verifiability (see WP:V) of the edits, before adding them to the live article.

If you have any questions left, feel free to ask them. A good place to ask for help is the Help desk, and the Teahouse. Experienced, friendly mentors are frequently having a look at these pages, and they are happy to help guiding new editors whenever there's any problem, anything unclear or any question about editing articles on Wikipedia.

I hope this helps! Thank you for taking the time to read it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Half-jokingly asking for forgiveness, instead of permission

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

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

@Javert2113: Haha, that was the best surprise so far. I always wanted to have a talk page stalker! You definitely deserve a beer as well. :D ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yay, official sanction! (I'll take the laughter as a "yes".) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)