Jump to content

User talk:ToBeFree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.14.100.80 (talk) at 16:59, 18 April 2020 (→How do I become unblocked from the OUPC page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Editing Bands and avoiding Edit Wars

Hey ~ ToBeFree (talk), I have managed to wait at least a week after I last edited and explained my viewpoints on the Darkest Hour Page, I was wondering if I could go forward and make an edit white avoiding an edit war, using reliable sources, thanks. Miked1992 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miked1992, thanks for asking, and for starting these discussions. Sadly, the answers to your other, similar requests, have been negative. The concerns voiced by other users at Talk:Lamb_of_God_(band) and Talk:As_I_Lay_Dying_(band) show clearly, with many references, that your proposed type of editing is being objected to. While there has been no response to Talk:Darkest_Hour_(band)#Guitar_Roles, I believe that the reactions on the other talk pages should be reason enough to stop making similar proposals in the future. Please find different topics to contribute about, instead of making these changes about bands. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi there! Please see this, don't know if you want to unblock on that basis? For what it's worth, I think the user has had a fairly rough ride for someone just trying to get unsourced BLP mistakes removed from a page – really, we should all be in sackcloth and ashes. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, ouch – yes, of course. Thank you very much for verifying the account. I think Meters and you shouldn't worry; I'm more concerned about earlier reverts. The now-verified users' conflict of interest will probably create a need for additional maintenance sooner or later, but I think we owe that to them, after all the trouble. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers:I don't see this as a rough ride. The contested information was removed pending confirmation of the user's identity. The user was politely informed, multiple times, of how to confirm her identity. We explained why she needed to confirm her identity, and why her account was being blocked in the meantime. What would you have us do instead? Allow yet another editor claiming to be the subject to make unsourced changes to a BLP, just because she jumps up and down and says "but it is me!" Meters (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meters, I think your response was fine. The longer history of the article, including reverts of the removal of incorrect information does seem to have been a rough ride. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I wasn't thinking of that. Meters (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ouch indeed! I've now looked at the history and there's another very similarly-named COI account there. I'm really tempted to just remove all the unsourced content outright. We have policies and processes to make sure that BLP articles are properly sourced and reasonably accurate, and it seems to me that we have collectively dropped the ball here – for thirteen years! Anyway, on to the next! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meters, I'm really not pointing any fingers here, as far as I can see the page has been a train-smash since it was started. But – only because you ask – what I'd like us all to do is to remove unsourced personal BLP information on sight, quite regardless of who is making the request, or indeed even if there hasn't been a request. Really, we shouldn't wait to be asked. You did just that, so kudos and thanks to you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

Hi Othayoth shankaran and Outlander07, this seems to be a case of forum shopping. This talk page is not a replacement for WP:ANI, and creating a request is as easy as clicking "Click here to start a new discussion" at WP:ANI. If you do so, you must provide diff links to the behavior you are complaining about. There is not much else than "please read Help:Diff" I can offer as a guide here. Special thanks to Ian.thomson, who has perfectly summarized the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Othayoth shankaran: See WP:NOTVAND. Just because you disagree with Outlander07's edits doesn't make them vandalism. Even if they are bad edits, that doesn't mean they're vandalism. Disruptive editing alone is not vandalism.
You and Outlander07 need to discuss your disagreements instead of calling each other vandals.
Also, read WP:DIFF for instructions on how to provide evidence instead of just telling us to look for it. If you make a claim, it's your job to provide evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


But i don't know how to make a request . can please guide me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othayoth shankaran (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to settle the disagreements.I am not interested in causing problems unnecessarily. Outlander07 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

concerning changes i made the

this is the documentation to the changes made

https://murderpedia.org/male.L/l1/lundgren-jeffrey-don.htm

"Lundgren and about two dozen followers had broken away from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

Teh reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was removed, a edit war ensued — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkrivermr (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content is not a reliable source, and edit warring is disruptive. The page has been protected for a week; please discuss changes at the article's talk page (Talk:Jeffrey Lundgren). I am completely uninvolved in this matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

Royalty clothing posted spam on their user talk page after removing your block notice. You might need to revoke their talk page access. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that doesn't happen often. Interesting case. Thanks for the notification! 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I've been seeing you around a lot lately at CAT:RFU. Thank you very much for helping! SQLQuery me! 20:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SQL, thank you very much for the kind feedback! 😊 I've just had a look at your contributions – there's a script for this? Given all the syntax fixes I have to make when reviewing unblock requests, I guess it must have been a nightmare to program it in a robust way.
I think there should be a template status for "awaiting response by the appellant". The category is constantly above 15 members, but only a third of them appears to actually require input from an administrator. Ignoring rows where last_admin_edit = last_user_edit seems to be the best available approach at the moment. However, this incorrectly ignores any page where the syntax had to be fixed by someone who didn't review the request.
Thank you for all your work and making me aware of Enterprisey's script! I'm not sure about using it yet; just like reply-link, it saves time that would otherwise have been spent thinking about the text again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, I use: User:Enterprisey/unblock-review.js. At this time, I don't think there is an 'awaiting response' template, but I think that could be very helpful! I normally close out requests where the appellant hasn't responded in 7-14 days, encouraging them to re-request an unblock when they are available to engage. SQLQuery me! 21:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Yeah, I sometimes do the same. Implementing "awaiting response" in a user-friendly way may by tough. I could imagine something like an additional "|idletimestamp=" parameter. If the parameter exists, the template does not embed CAT:RFU until the page is edited at any later time (current_revision_timestamp > idletimestamp). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have documentation, ElSnakeoBwb is not allowing proper edits and is involved/started the edit war. I have followed all guidelines and provided documentation to the changes that have been made

you are allowing a user to restrict factual changes over bias and syntax? duly noted

documentation link to changes is still as follows:


https://murderpedia.org/male.L/l1/lundgren-jeffrey-don.htm

"Lundgren and about two dozen followers had broken away from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

Link to church is incorrect and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkrivermr (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elkrivermr, you have never edited Talk:Jeffrey Lundgren, the article's talk page, yet. Before you have made a discussion attempt, please do not ask me or other administrators for assistance again. Only if you have attempted to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, others can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-16

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

Recent changes

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Wikidata database last week. Some wikis went down for twenty minutes. Wikidata and other projects showed error messages. Interwiki links were not shown, some tools did not work and other problems. Some of this was fixed quickly. The developers are working on fixing the rest. [5][6][7]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 15. It will be on all wikis from April 16 (calendar).

Future changes

  • Some graphs have not worked on mobile. This will soon be fixed. [8]
  • The article tab on talk pages of redirects links to the target of the redirect. It could link to the redirect page itself instead. You can leave feedback on this.
  • For pages using syntax highlighting, the use of the deprecated <source> tag, as well as the use of the deprecated enclose parameter, will add tracking categories.

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

15:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Puzzled

When reading Wikipedia I got a message about a ‘range block’ by you? I next to never edit anything so I’m not overly concerned but I am more confused. What’s the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.211.214 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 74.77.211.214, your current IP address is not blocked. You can use it to create an account.
Editing by unregistered users from your IP address range has been blocked. An IP address range may in some cases be used by many people; if you do not believe that you are the person this block is intended for, please follow the instructions below:
If you do not have an account: Registered users are still able to edit. Please create an account. If you cannot create an account from this or any another network in the foreseeable future, you may request that volunteers create your username for you. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request an account under your preferred username. It may take some time to process your request.
If you have an account: Please log in to edit. If you still cannot edit, please place {{unblock}} on your talk page and make reference to this message.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled 2

So I got one message from you. As I followed the instructions that apparently disappeared and I got just a cut and paste. I guess I wanted to find out if you are up to something nefarious? Who are you? Why are you blocking people? Again. I’ve edited Wikipedia like 3 times ever and not in ages. I don’t want an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.211.214 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Again, you are not blocked, or you would not have been able to post your questions to this page. Your IP is a mobile IP, so you were likely on a different IP when you saw the message. As for why ToBeFree would be blocking users or IPs, he or she is an administrator on English Wikipedia. That's one of the actions admins do. Meters (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 74.77.211.214, after sending the instructions, I figured that they probably won't help you much, since you use a mobile device and can't see what I was pointing to. Instead, I have copied what you'd see on a desktop computer here. You can now see the standardized instructions for such a case. Other users from your network have been vandalizing Wikipedia, and anonymous editing had to be disabled to prevent further disruption.
If you would like to appeal this measure, please do so from the blocked connection, by opening Special:MyTalk while blocked and writing "{{unblock}}" there. We can then have a second look to see if the block is really still necessary.
Alternatively, just create an account if you would like to edit from the blocked connection. If you don't want to edit from there, the block won't affect you anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled again

Okay. One last time what is going on. Why can’t I just respond to your message? Your refusal to give anything approaching a straight answer seems like you are up to some shady shit. I please don’t make me waste my time getting into this. Just tell me what is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.211.214 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

74.77.211.214, I'm equally puzzled. 🙂 I have no idea which of my blocks, specifically, we are talking about. Your current IP address is not affected by any block, and I can't telepathically determine the required technical information to produce a more specific response. If you follow the instructions above – standardized but helpful –, we can have a closer look. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Harald_Schmied

Hi, is that statement Draft_talk:Harald_Schmied all right and if so, could you do the "move" and fix the ":categories"? --mARTin 17:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi mARTin, thanks for asking! You have correctly submitted the article for review, and you have correctly described your (probably unproblematic) connection to the subject on the talk page. That looks good to me, but I'll let one of the experienced reviewers have a look; I rarely review drafts. This may take about 3 months, but the draft will be reviewed, and you are not required to do anything else. Feel free to lean back; this will be dealt with. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: mARTin, would you mind disabling the checkmark below your signature in your preferences? ("Treat the above as wiki markup"/"Individuell gestaltete Signatur"). If you disable the option, you can still choose any text (such as "mARTin"), but the signature will contain a link to your talk page and user page. Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback and the p.s., just unchecked the checkmark, hope that works fine [it works fine] --mARTin (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you're welcome 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 954

(Was trying to reply at WP:AIV/TB2) I've set 954 (hist · log) to log-only, but left it on DatBot's list. See the filter notes. You might still see some FP reports, but at least users won't be hassled anymore. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey Suffusion of Yellow, thank you very much! 🙂 I think logging is fine; when the actual LTA appears at AIV, they'll probably be blocked quickly enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access?

Hi TBF - please see the history of this userpage. You blocked the /64 - do we remove talk page access on range blocks? They certainly aren't using the talk page for making an unblock request, but range blocks aren't my thing. GirthSummit (blether) 12:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit, thanks for the notification and for asking – it depends. /64 "range" blocks on IPv6 addresses are pretty similar to single-IP IPv4 blocks (User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64), and the block log of that particular IPv6 range made the decision easy. The request for blocking it from editing is just a week old; it can be found at User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 11#Anna Catharina Bischoff. If unsure, always feel free to create a single-IP block with talk page access revoked, or semi-protecting the talk page for "disruptive editing". If you notice that you have to make multiple such blocks/protections over time, you're probably dealing with a problem that requires talk page access revocation on the whole range.
To make the decision even easier, the {{rangeblock}} template is much more helpful than other templates in helping innocent users to deal with the situation. Blocking templates just sadly do not seem to be shown on mobile devices. A blocked mobile user just sees the text "{{rangeblock}}"; I hope this will be changed in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Correction: Only use semi-protection in such a case if multiple IP addresses are involved. I've seen this happening multiple times, an IP-hopping editor returning to their old talk pages disruptively, but usually a block will do. WP:SEMI notes that "Protection should be used sparingly on the talk pages of blocked users, including IP addresses. Instead the user should be re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. When required, or when re-blocking without talk page editing allowed is unsuccessful, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, and not exceeding the duration of the block.") ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Just spotted the amount of work you've been doing on the unblock request backlog, and the number of more detailed discussions (rather than jumping to a refusal with details) you've got going simultaneously. Cheers! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nosebagbear, thanks for the kind feedback! It makes me happy to see it being positively noticed 😃 Thanks for your work, too, especially for dealing with spam and copyright violations, and for providing insight at WP:AN! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced Practice

Hello, ToBeFree,

You blocked Experienced Practice because of their username. The username has been changed but they are still blocked. Would it be alright with you if I unblocked them? I'm pinging JBW since they denied their last unblock request. Here is Experienced Practice's response to the denial of that request. Liz Read! Talk! 16:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I had stopped responding to them because of the following statements (emphasis mine):
If I understand the situation correctly, the user intends to edit about such topics in the future. I agree that the original reason for the block, promotion of a specific website, has disappeared. I do believe that the user will never spam their website again, and we probably agree in this regard. Unexpectedly, however, the block reason might still describe a valid concern that is not longer related to a specific website.
The new username, while no longer promoting a specific website, seems to indicate a focus on promoting a pseudoscientific theory – allegedly proven by their personal practical experience. The document linked in the latest response seems to confirm that the user considers religious documents and their "experienced practice" to be reliable sources for an encyclopedia, even when dealing with topics like COVID-19. At best, we could expect original research about religion; at worst, sentences like "Coronavirus is an illusion" could suddenly appear in encyclopedic articles affected by general sanctions. The user is autoconfirmed with 24 edits; their next one could already cause noticeable damage. A topic ban from COVID-19 could be a reasonable requirement, but I'm afraid it would not be sufficient to prevent a dangerous kind of disruption.
However, since I have set the block and may have unreasonably strong feelings against the user's behavior, I trust your judgement, Liz. If after reading these concerns, you would like to unblock the user – under any condition(s) selected by you –, I will accept the decision, and I will avoid interacting with the unblocked user. If they are actually disruptive enough to justify a re-block, it wouldn't come from me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Nevermind" might be an understatement. Sorry to bother you about this. Thank you for laying out your reasons in such detail. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
😄 No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably redundant for me to comment now, Liz, since ToBeFree has given such a detailed and thorough answer, and you have said "Nevermind", but since you have pinged me, my (much less thorough) answer is that the editor was clearly here to promote her or his personal views on religion and philosophy, and clearly has neither an understanding of what the problem was nor any intention of desisting from similar editing in future. Also, it is not entirely true to say that ToBeFree blocked the editor "because of their username": it was because of their username and promotional editing. My own view is that the username issue is a minor issue, but the nature of the editing is a very major one. JBW (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit

ToBeFree, could you please clarify what is the purpose of subpage /Edit at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? The subpage itself was only ever used for some prolonged discussion of the page Gamergate controversy. Its transclusion is empty in the section Current requests for edits to a protected page. And the instructions in section do not mention the subpage, instead suggesting to create a level 3 subsection instead. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a pertinent discussion on the talk page.  Reading... —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand correctly, the progress on the technical roadmap is stuck, because it requires a rewrite of the bot, which clerks WP:RFPP. Perhaps the transclusion of /Edit should be removed for the time being? —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrybak, I had completely forgotten about this transclusion. 🙂 Feel free to remove it for now – perhaps we finally get a bot update in 2021. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

/* Administration and Academic Calendar */

The given link in Wikipedia is a 404 page. So I replaced the link with the appropriate link. Kindly check the link once

How do I become unblocked from the OUPC page

Hi there, thank you for your swift reply, and after reading the COI page I understand my mistake - may I please ask how I get unblocked from the Oxford University Polo Club page as I will need to make serious changes to my club's page in future. Warm regards, Dhruv Sengupta, OUPC Treasurer

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=951741277"