User talk:ToBeFree/A/1

• ToBeFree/A/1
• ToBeFree/A/2
• ToBeFree/A/3
• ToBeFree/A/4
• ToBeFree/A/5
• ToBeFree/A/6

Sent to other users; stored here for reference because I might need that text again one day

Volunteer encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built and maintained by volunteers in their free time. Donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are used for technical expenses and outreach programs, but never to pay editors for editing Wikipedia. See https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donations_FAQ#What_do_you_plan_to_do_with_my_donation%3F for details.

External links on Post-Digital Print

Hi :) I have removed two external links and two apparently promotional lines from the "Post-Digital Print" article. It has been a while since you had added them - 123 days. I'm using STiki to find edits that happened long in the past and might have been overlooked by other users. It's an interesting way of delving into the history of Wikipedia.

I personally think that external links, especially to smaller blogs and websites, are often not necessary to improve the quality of an article. Often, they are being used for promotion, advertising products or websites. In the case of your specific edit, I was sure that I'm dealing with the same kind of edits I've been reverting before - but then STiki told me that I am about to undo a change made by an experienced user with over 50 edits. That's why, instead of simply putting an unpersonal warning template on your talk page, I'm trying to explain my deletion.

When replying, to notify me of your answer, please use {{ping|ToBeFree}} or feel free to do so on my talk page, where I will certainly see it. If you reply on my talk page, please copy my original message over there too. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have created a "sandbox" that you can conveniently use for any recommended changed to the article

Hi :) To make this easier for you, and to allow you to modify large parts of the article without being stopped by people concerned about your conflict of interest, I have copied the article to User:David_Lusterman/sandbox. In a second edit, I have copied your suggested edits so that they can be easily compared to the original version.

To continue submitting your suggested changes, when you think that the sandbox article is done and you don't want to add further changes, you can add a message on the main article's talk page. Your edits will be then verified by experienced Wikipedia editors, and copied as far as possible. Promotional details, external links in the article body (except reference links to reliable third-party sources) and advertising language will likely not be copied; please keep it neutral. Thank you very much for your time and understanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"Spoofing" of IP addresses on Wikipedia is not possible

copied from User_talk:IronGargoyle ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am replying to your message saying that you undid an edit you believed I had made to an entry for somebody called A. Charles Muller. I have never edited this entry and am worried about how my IP address could be associated with the edit you undid. Do you have any idea? I believe that this IP address is used only by me or by people who live in my house. I am the only person living here who edits Wikipedia and, as far as I can remember, it has been quite a long time since I edited anything. So, it looks as if somebody is spoofing my IP address on Wikipedia. I would have hoped that this kind of spoofing was not possible, but ... now I am confused. Any comment you can make would be welcome. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.194.167 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! "Spoofing" an IP in the way you've described is not possible on Wikipedia. This is because your connection to Wikipedia is done via TCP, a network protocol that does not allow "spoofing". This is different than sending an e-mail or a letter:

• In real life, you can send a letter with a fake "sender address", but you won't get any replies.
• You can send an e-mail with a fake "sender address", but you won't get any replies.
• You can not connect to Wikipedia using a fake IP address, because the "handshake" in the TCP protocol will fail without a valid sender address.

The issue is not spoofing, it is probably something else: Unless someone else in your house has made the edits (who knows?), you are probably using a dynamic IP address. This means that you automatically get a new IP address every few days, and this IP address might have been someone else's IP address in the past.

In a nutshell: Don't worry! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back.

Hello again, Marlenekoenig.

Thank you for all your contributions so far. It might have seemed as if they'd be unwelcome, but we do appreciate every attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and removing outdated, wrong information from an biography of a living person is definitely such a good-faith attempt.

Some users might have called your edits "vandalism"; I personally disagree, as vandalism on Wikipedia is strictly defined as bad-faith, deliberate disruption. I do not believe that you have ever been acting in bad faith.

You have expressed some concerns that I would like to address, to help you with the next steps of the deletion discussion you've initiated.

• Your first, strongest concern regarding edits to your talk page appears to be the usage of pseudonyms. While you are openly using your real name as a username, some other users do not appear to be using their real names when leaving messages on your page. I understand that this might feel strange; it can feel like arguing with someone who is wearing a motorcycle helmet and refusing to take it off. The impression likely gets amplified by the fact that over the Internet, we can't see each other's faces. This is, by the way, the reason why I am often using a lot of smileys. I am not a native English speaker, and the language barrier adds possible confusion for me and everyone who reads my text. To clarify my intentions, I use these little images in my messages. Many other people don't, and nobody is required to. It is my personal way of attempting to avoid possible problems before they can even occur.

You specifically said: "Use your own name.", "Again, someone who does not use their own name ... shameful. Unprofessional.", "None of you use real names."

I would like to clarify two points here: 1) Nobody is required to reveal their real name on Wikipedia; doing so yourself does not force everyone to do the same. 2) We do use our real names, and we do even have photos of ourselves visible on our pages. Here are two examples, just click the following two links and you will hopefully be positively surprised: User:Sadads, User:ToBeFree

• You said that you "do not wish to be on Wikipedia". I can understand that it must feel weird and wrong to read a public article about yourself, written by someone else years ago, full of possibly outdated information. You tried to make other, more experienced editors aware of the problem, and their reaction just was "no consensus to delete the page". What an outrage!

The problem might be easier to understand if you consider recent abuse scandals by famous Hollywood directors. None of them would like to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but the public has strong interest in reliable, neutral and up-to-date information about these people. Imagine these people could have all Wikipedia and press articles about their deeds deleted on their request. Oh, what an outrage that would cause. Press freedom is an extremely important fundamental right that you, yourself rely on as an author of books. You have likely mentioned some famous people in your books. You have described their works, and cited their works as a source. How would you react if they asked you to censor your book? "Please remove chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 entirely from all further copies of your book. Reason: I do not wish to be mentioned in your book."

However, we will do our best to help you. Your article might well be deleted based on our Notability criteria, and the current deletion discussion is strongly going into the direction preferred by you. You are very welcome to have a closer look at the arguments supplied by the other editors there, and to voice your own opinion there. Just please make sure that it is based on our guidelines, for example the General Notability Guideline. Simply stating that you "do not wish to be on Wikipedia" is not sufficient to justify a deletion, and I hope that the above example explains why this is the case. Oh, and imagine the Chinese government would ask us to delete the article about China.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask any questions here; we're here to help you, and we're investing a lot of our personal free time to make this encyclopedia work the way it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

^{Why did *this* cause a ping?! The signature should have been old enough not to create one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)}

IMDb & Footnotes

Hi

Thank you for all your contributions. I just wanted to note that using IMDb as your only source for information about living persons might be problematic, for these reasons:

• Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb
• and the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy, which is quite strict about reliable sources

Also, you might want to add your references as a footnote; adding them only in the edit summary would force users to search through the whole edit history to see the references. Some pages have a history of over 10,000 edits – imagine you had to dig through that. To do this, see Help:Footnotes -- your editor might already have a function doing this for you. Check if there's a "Cite" button above your editing box!

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous button HTML backup

divbox|radius=10px|green|Lorem ipsum|Lorem ipsum dolor...

<div style="clear: both;"> <div class="plainlinks nounderlines center" style="font-size:200%; color:#FFFFFF; background: linear-gradient(135deg, #008000 0%, #007500 51%, #007000 75%); border: 1px solid #007000; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 10px; -webkit-border-radius: 10px; border-radius: 10px; padding: 1em; width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"><b>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&action=edit&section=new <span style="color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration: none;">Please click here to add a new message!</span> [[File:Face-smile.svg|32px|link=|alt=]]]</b></div> </div>

Trick-or-treating

Hi, I've noticed that you've edited the Trick-or-treating article recently. There's been a debate running for the last few days over the title of this article. Your input would be appreciated! — Smjg (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany

What about what I wrote do you consider vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.166.5 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josh3580#Mass_suicides_in_1945_Nazi_Germany ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle

Hello,

I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon

Hi ToBeFree, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle ^connect!

Major changes:

• Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
• Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
• Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Huggle message

Hey ToBeFree! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Repeated Accusations of Vandalism to Other Members

Unfortunately your automatic script must have flagged my edit as nonconstructive and vandalism, as no logical human would have interpreted it as such. Neither of which was my intention, and since your talk page has another member bringing this topic up, I urge you to consider making more fruitful, more manual edits to WikiPedia. I simply issued a image that I took into the public domain and embedded it into the article, which added context to the page. I doubt you'd even read this, but I guess this is why WikiPedia's active userbase has declined so much in recent years. Courtneymorris95 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not using any script to detect/flag unconstructive edits automatically, but I use Twinkle to revert such edits and to notify the affected users of my actions. There is no reason to replace freely licensed images (CC: BY 3.0!) with public domain images just because of their license. Actually, if both images are freely licensed, it seems to be very unconstructive to replace a well-suited image with a less useful image. If you even happen to be the creator of the less useful images, this looks to me as if you want to see your images in as many articles as possible, regardless whether this is a good choice or not. This is why I have manually, logically, reverted your change and used Twinkle to inform you about my action. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ToBeFree. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ToBeFree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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/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/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/w/index.php?title=Golem&action=history

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

March 2018 3RR message by Oshwah

Original message

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)

Comment by editor whose edits had been reverted

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keen7777 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

_{Additional late note by ToBeFree, 02:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC): There was a response on 3 April 2018 that we both didn't notice, apparently. I'm not going to reheat this issue months later, though. Here is the reply, for the archive:}

We're a recognized organization with plenty of verifiable documentation on our work- if what you're trying to say is that you need that documented then that's fine- we can do that, but I could do without *your* incredibly rude tone and attempts to talk down when it's your and others' poor oversight that allows entire pages to be written and maintained for years without monitoring for such requirements or making them well known, including the fact that I've looked at dozens of similar organizations with pages of the same content and type. You would do well to reconsider your professionalism and practice some common courtesy when discussing these matters in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keen7777 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

^{Please note that they're not complaining about my tone; the discussion has been between two other editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 27 June 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/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/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/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/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/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)

Late additional note, added to the archive: I should have used the {{Uw-3rr}} template instead of the {{Uw-disruptive4}} template, to properly explain the problem. About the specific incident, please see this discussion (permanent link) at WP:AN/EW. In a nutshell, the warning was justified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

29 November 2024

Hello, ToBeFree/A. 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/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)

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)

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/Archive 1#Hi-Lift Jack. The "ProBoards" capitalization, now that I have a look at this again, seems to be perfectly okay, though! I was probably overcautious here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/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/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)

@CflemLCHS:

Hm.

The username really is not the problem here, and I personally am grateful for the clear indication of a conflict of interest. Not having such a clear username would just have caused more confusion achieving the same result in the end.

What you "should have", and what anyone else affiliated with the school should do, is simply suggesting the changes on the article's talk page. That is not considerably harder to do than implementing the changes yourself, and it allows implementing all your good contributions without copying the promotional/problematic parts. I would have believed that to be a solution both useful to the school and the encyclopedia.

Sorry to see you go. When telling someone else about this issue, I recommend giving them a link to the talk page of the article, where I will add links to our discussion here. You can use the following link to easily show the situation to someone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lakeview_Centennial_High_School#Conflict_of_Interest

Thank you for your time, and sorry for the disappointment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hehe. They are really not going to like me. That article is a promotional mess. It won't be long. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: :D -- That's exactly what this article has needed for a long time! Thank you very much; I was unsure where to start with cleanup, even. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a long way from done.

1. NCES stats need updated and other statistical sources removed.
2. Athletics info needs to be consolidated and independently sourced to the UIL or journalistic sources.
3. The stuff on all the academies needs drastic trimming.

I'm sure there's more. Any help is appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

Talk

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

@Javert2113: That has confused me a lot for a long time, until I saw someone doing it with a simple invisible table. It was a user who had their page full of userboxes, and they needed the table to make them fit on the page. I stole the idea. Hope you like it too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's brilliant; thanks! I love it! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-20

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

Recent changes

• Dynamic maps are now available on most Wikipedias. Labels on maps can also be in different languages.
• The new Advanced Search interface is now available as a Beta Feature on all wikis. This makes it easier to learn about and to use many of the powerful options in our search. Feedback is appreciated. [30]

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 16 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• In the mobile view, warnings for when something is wrong with a page are not as clear as they should be. The developers are working on this. You can give feedback and suggestions.
• The developers are working on making the Wikipedia Android app available in more languages. You can give feedback, suggestions and help test it. Read more on mediawiki.org [31]

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

22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Silvana De Mari biography

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

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

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

Hi - please excuse my mistake, I was irritated by the other edits you had made to the page. You had replaced "homosexuality" with "anal sex", changed the following sentence:

• "[...] defined by the President of the Order of Medical Doctors as not to be based on facts or scientific evidence. The disciplinary panel is in the process of evaluating whether De Mari's actions will result in any disciplinary measure"

to

• "not matching what Medicine thinks today",

and also, this edit confused me.

Now that I have a look at the page again, this sentence here does seem to be a problem that should be changed soon:

• Alongside her fantasy production, she's also contributed to the italian academic debate o this literary genre through her activity as essayist and speaker.

Besides the typographical error, this sentence has no references, which is especially problematic in a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP).

I had, fortunately, noticed my mistake relatively quickly and undid my reversion: Diff 841393483/841393917

I had also already added a correction of my wrong message to your talk page: Diff 841394267/841393488

...so I hope that there is no reason left to be angry. I will, however, remove the unsourced sentence for now -- feel free to re-add it with a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

sorry mistake

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

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

Vinent

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

Hi Battlingsiki1986! This is a pretty bold statement:

Best knowing for its skill and speed he is one of most succesfull amateur boxers in history.

(assuming you mean "best known") - You are probably very experienced in that area, and for you, it is absolutely clear that this information is correct. Others, especially those without any knowledge about boxing, might see that differently. He might have fans who consider him to be "one of the most successful amateur boxers" - but he might also have enviers, and some fans of other boxers might not consider him to be so famous. To avoid wrong statements in biographies of living people, we have a very strict policy that requires these statements to be reliably sourced, verifiable for anyone.

But, Battlingsiki1986, this is probably not a problem! If it is so clear and well-known that he is one of the most successful amateur boxers, then you'll easily find a reliable source to add with that sentence. Just take these extra 10 seconds and add a link to a news article that explicitly says that he's one of the most successful amateur boxers. Easy as that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested edits to Oscar Murillo (artist)

^{Heading added by me ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)}

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

Hello Donator25! Nice to meet you.

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

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.
— Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

If you are not receiving any form of compensation for your edits, you are not required, but encouraged, to clarify any affiliation to the subject, nevertheless.

If the name of his former spouse is correct, and the statements in the article are factual and encyclopedic, the mention of the previous relationship will probably not be removed on request. However, the article can (and should!) be improved to reflect the current situation. Your help is very appreciated! However, please do not edit the article directly; instead, please make all suggestions on the article's talk page. Experienced editors can then implement all the edits considered to be factual and neutral; they can improve syntactical details and ask for clarification if something is unclear.

In a nutshell: We would love to see your improvements, and when you add them on the article's talk page, we'll do our best to implement them in a way that makes everyone happy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Complaint by Kelseykukui about "vandalism" by Melcous

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

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

(talk page stalker) Actually they are removing the promotional material from the page and keeping it in line with our policy on neutrality. However I will ask, what is your connection to Griffin Guess? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kelseykukui: Thank you for asking me for help. I'm sorry to probably disappoint you, but I had created the COI noticeboard entry about this article, and I did that because:

• the article strongly needed to be cleaned up, and
• you, Kelseykukui, might need to avoid further direct editing of the article.

Also, please do not attack other editors, especially not on my talk page. I might write a longer answer later, but for now, the above comment by RickinBaltimore appears to be summarizing the situation nicely (thanks! ). Your response to their question should probably be written on your own talk page, to make others aware of the connection, if there is one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

RE:

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

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

For my talk page archive. ;)

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

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

Enuma Elis

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

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

Hey 5.198.10.236, thank you very much!

I'll have a closer look at the article, maybe I can help with the issues you've pointed out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-21

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

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

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

17:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Murillo Art Wikipedia Page

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

To comply with these provisions you should:

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

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

@Donator25: Hi again

I'll have a look, thank you for pointing out these problems! Wrong information in a biography of a living person definitely needs to be removed; it just becomes harder to fix than usual if that information is reliably sourced and "just" outdated.

Please note that Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers, and that I personally have not written the content you're complaining about. I'll do my best to help, but please make sure that your messages, whether to me or any other editors, do not carry any implication of legal threats (see WP:NLT). Any legal complaints that you wish to enforce, e.g. about the Data Protection Act, must be made using the information provided on the following two pages:

• WP:FAQ/Article_subjects, section "I would like to sue you for lying about me in your article. How do I proceed?", and
• Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects

Often, volunteers will help to remove the content before any legal action would even be able to take place. However, if you ever feel that this did not solve the problem, please have a look at the pages above.

I'll now remove the information you're requesting to be removed, but someone else might complain and restore it. You will be able to verify this in the "edit history" of the article. If that happens, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead of considering taking legal action against individual people who are just trying to find an acceptable solution for everyone. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donator25: Update: Sorry, but could you please point out the exact statement in the current version of the article that you consider to be wrong? I can't find anything about marriage, I can't find the name "Angelica Fernandes"... And nobody has changed the article since my edits! Are you sure that you want something to be removed from the article? Which part? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

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

Oscar Murillo (Artist)

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

File:Screenoscar.png

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

@Donator25: Thank you, now I see what you mean. This might be one of two possible problems, I guess:

• That information might not actually be from Wikipedia/Wikidata, see also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15698294, and might rather have been added by someone else, either to Google's information box directly, or on another website not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation,
• or: That information is outdated and stored in a cache that needs to be cleared. Google, as far as I know, provides an option to report wrong information in that box. If they don't, or if they don't react, please check Google's procedures about this kind of issues, maybe about the Data Protection Act or something like that.

If anyone tells you to "correct this issue on Wikipedia instead", please make clear to them that Wikipedia is up-to-date and does not contain this information anymore. Anyone telling you different appears to be wrong.

Hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Harry Oldmeadow

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

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

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

Pursuant to the aforementioned facts, I hope you won't mind if I delete your remarks from my talk page. Many thanks and best wishes. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, no need to keep it there. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Huggle code signing: tracking section

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	User talk:Marlenekoenig‎. Thank you for the patience working on that page. It's important to make sure that we are sensitive to the concerns of BLPs. Sadads (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sadads: Oh, this is a refreshing gesture, thank you very much! I'm going to drink that cup of tea now, and will be back in about half an hour to see if the world has ended in the meantime. Can't hurt to take a break right now; I'll Xsign the remaining lines afterwards. Thank you for all your work as well! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Keeping up moral is super important -- we are in our volunteer capacities :P I do want to comment a bit on the style of some of your comments. I realize that we have a lot of written up help pages and policies (and as you can see I am also referring to these venues); however, I make sure to sandwich these links within some human-written, emphathetic language -- I have heard from a number of folks who have had bad Wikipedia communications experiences, because they thought that they were "just being referred to a wall of text or links" and not being given a more human interaction. Just a thought :D Otherwise though, I really appreciate your contribution to this conversation, Sadads (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh - yes, that's a good point. I will explicitly link to the relevant section headings next time, and I'll cite the information the user is specifically asking for. In this case, I should have quoted the e-mail address, just like you did afterwards. In the moment you wrote it, I noticed that it was basically missing from my comments. I could also have written a more precise answer to the question for a phone number, instead of just linking to a page which lists an e-mail address as the preferred way of contact. About walls of text, I could use the Manual of Style as an impression for myself to be able to understand what a newcomer might feel like when being linked to a somewhat "smaller" FAQ page. Thanks again ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed. For how well we document the world, we are terrible at making the documentation of our own community inaccessible. Sadads (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-22

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

Recent changes

• You can now use global preferences on most wikis. This means you can set preferences for all wikis at the same time. Before this you had to change them on each individual wiki. Global preferences will come to the Wikipedias later this week. [32][33]
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked. [34]
• Wikidata now supports lexicographical data. This helps describe words.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups. [35]
• Some rare invisible Unicode characters have recently been banned from page titles. This includes soft hyphens (U+00AD) and left-to-right (U+2066) and right-to-left (U+2067) isolate markers. Existing pages with these characters will soon be moved by a script. [36]
• There's a new Wikimedia Foundation team to support the Wikimedia technical communities. It's called the Technical Engagement team. Most of the team members did similar work in other teams before this. [37]

Problems

• Some translatable pages are showing old translations instead of latest ones. The cause of this issue has been fixed. We will update all pages automatically to show the latest translations. [38]

Changes later this week

• There will be a new special page named PasswordPolicies. This page gives information about the password rules for each user group on that wiki. [39]
• A new way to see moved paragraphs in diffs is coming to most wikis. This is to make it easier to find the moved paragraphs and the changes in them. [40]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 May. It will be on all wikis from 31 May (calendar).
• Wikis can enable Citoid to provide automatic reference look-up in the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. This is complex. The tool will now disable itself if the configuration isn't correct. It has warned about this in the JavaScript console since February. Check that your wiki is configured correctly. You can ask for help if you need it. [41]

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

Future changes

• Content Translation drafts which have not been updated in over a year will be removed. This allows other users to translate those articles. [42]
• A survey is collecting information on what users think about how Wikimedia wiki pages are loaded. This information could be used in future development. [43]
• Some wikis will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 30 May and 13 June. Wikis with fewer than 100 linter issues in the main namespace in all high-priority linter categories will switch. This includes Wikidata. Tidy will probably be removed on all wikis in the first week of July. [44][45]

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

12:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About Me: Billy Bob

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

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

Hmmm

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

Oh, it's you, hi! And yes, you're probably correct. I often label edits as "test edits" even if they could also be called "vandalism" -- especially if the user doesn't have a red warning on their page yet. This might be my personal way of trying to avoid the wrong kind of mistakes.

I think that labelling vandalism as "test edits" is rarely problematic, because:

• If it's actually a test edit, someone experimenting with Wikipedia might decide to make more constructive edits the next time, and
• If it's vandalism, the vandal gets a relatively appropriate warning that has a softer wording than the uw-vandalism series.

Both doesn't seem to be wrong to me, also noting that there is no uw-test4 template and uw-vandalism4 is used as last warning instead anyway.

Let's compare the two warning template texts:

uw-test1 vs uw-vandalism1:

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

uw-test2 vs uw-vandalism2:

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

uw-test3 vs uw-vandalism3:

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

uw-vandalism4:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Some differences and similarities that I notice when comparing them directly to each other:

• Uw-test1 contains a link to my talk page instead of the help desk.
• Uw-vandalism1 contains a link to the sandbox, leaving open the possibility of a test edit.
• Uw-test2 does not mention the word "vandalism" yet; it does not yet explicitly call the edits "unconstructive".
• Uw-test2 takes into account that the user might have wanted to undo their edit afterwards.
• Uw-test2 does not yet threaten the user with a block.
• Uw-test3 uses bold text for the blocking warning, which interestingly is a feature that should probably be added to uw-vandalism3 as well.
• Uw-test3 still mentions the sandbox as a place for experiments.
• Uw-test4 is a redirect to uw-vandalism4.

Huggle uses an empty summary for reverting vandalism with the Q key, currently ignoring the configuration which should label these edits as "nonconstructive edits". Using "test edits" with a link to the sandbox instead doesn't seem to be bad to me, although it might look strange when reverting obviously malicious cases of repeated vandalism.

I just noticed that you have already sent the following two replies before I had finished writing. Cheeky! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually IMO being a dick is better than being nice (for dealing with vandalism only), so I personally choose pressing Q, it's just more convenient. The level 3 of both templates are way too different. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your message my typing four tildes (~~~~) XD Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Message by 83.53.107.224

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

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

Sturgeon

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

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

✅ ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request by Kashmiri1950

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

Hi Kashmiri1950, thank you very much for the explanation.

There is a complex set of rules and guidelines about deletion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Because it is so complex, we also have a short help page about this topic, which I had given you a link to. I am happy to see that you have read that page, and that you have now decided to request a "speedy deletion". I am unsure, however, if the page really meets one of the very strict criteria for speedy deletion. It is from 2004! That's so long ago, back then even unregistered users had been able to create pages. Most Wikipedians probably don't even know that it has ever been like this. This one stayed until today, and before we delete it, we should have a regular "deletion discussion" about it.

Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Higher_Secondary_Examination

I hope I could help you by creating this deletion discussion. It will last for about 7 days - if it is a very clear case, it might be closed earlier though. Experienced editors will have a closer look at the page and your deletion argument. They will explain why the page should actually be deleted, or why it should not be deleted. Let's see what happens! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

Main discussion

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

...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)

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)

Main discussion, continued

This does not seem to actually answer the problem; I'll try to explain it differently.

before your edit	after your edit
considered to be "German"	considered at the time to be not fully German

You say that this is a grammatical correction. This might be the case if the quotation marks around the word "German" are actually meant to say "not fully German". I do not believe this to be the intention behind these quotation marks. The quotation marks, in this sentence, are not implying incompleteness; they are used to quote a word. If you do not like this usage of the quotation marks, a grammatical fix would look like this:

before your edit	after your edit
considered to be "German"	considered to be German

Any other change can not be justified by grammar. It adds your personal interpretation to the article; it changes the meaning of the sentence, and you did so without providing a source. This, and only this, is why I have undone the edit. I have received a "Thank You" from another experienced editor* for this edit some hours later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
^{*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)

Looking at this one month later

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump

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

@Liberty State Of Jefferson: Hey, thank you for replying.

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

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

httpd.conf

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

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

Wikipedian of the Month

	Wikipedian of the Month
	Reverting vandalism on some of my watchlist pages during May with Huggle. Iggy (Swan) 10:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I love how this icon coincidentally shows "May" as well. Thank you very much, Iggy the Swan, this is a cool award idea and it makes me proud to receive it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The new editor at Human migration article

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

Huh, well I'll be darned... they self-reverted. So disregard my previous message, then. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey RA0808! I was already afraid someone might later complain about the 3RR; I think that you are right, and waiting a bit for another editor to have a look can't really hurt with this kind of good-faith edit. I'll have a closer look. If I could decide, the statement would simply be moved to the article's talk page, hopefully making everyone happy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict: lol that's the best outcome. Waiting often pays out. Thank you for all your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

About reliable sources

Message 1

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

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

Message 2

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

Hi

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

You are violating Wikipedia rules

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

Getting a bit close to WP:NLT. Any more of this any you risk getting blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi PGND.

I have no bias against or in favor of that university -- today, I have read about it the first time. Adding external links to the body of an article and removing entire criticism sections that all appear to have references is an unusual action, especially in an article that is marked with the following template:

However, I have undone my edit now, because I am not entirely sure what to do here. You can verify this at the article's history, specifically the following contribution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bastyr_University&diff=prev&oldid=844409431&diffmode=source

An experienced editor has then disagreed with me and you, and has reverted my undo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bastyr_University&diff=next&oldid=844409431&diffmode=source

Please contact Alexbrn if you think that this has been an error. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have a second, old sport...

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

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

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

Addendum: granted, this is somewhat unfinished. Sorry about that. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Hey!

I'm not the most competent person in regards to deletion criteria, I'm afraid. However, I tried to find at least one *newspaper* article on news.google.com with their name in the title, and sadly failed. On the other hand, there seem to be many medical publications mentioning them, linked by you.

The original article has been speedily deleted with the reason "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion"; a more detailled explanation about this rule appears to be here: Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance

2009... There's a "submit draft for review" button, I'd click it. Can't hurt. I personally can confirm that the article is interesting, and it made me read more about the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! I think I'll hack at the draft a bit more later; I think I need an infobox, at least, and we'll see what happens afterwards. Thanks again! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 19:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I wish you good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-23

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

Recent changes

• The MonoBook skin has been optimised for mobile devices. It now looks different. [46]
• Planet Wikimedia collects blogs about Wikimedia. It will now use the Rawdog feed aggregator to do this instead of Planet. [47][48]
• Redirect links in Special:WhatLinksHere now link to the original page and not the target page. This was done earlier and changed the used messages on some pages. This was a problem for wikis that customized the message. A new change fixed this by using the old messages with one more parameter for customization. Wikis that already changed their customized messages will have to move the customization back again. [49]

Problems

• You will not be able to edit some wikis between 06:00 and 06:30 UTC on 13 June. You can see if your wiki is one of them.
• MassMessage did not work 24–28 May. This is also why last week's Tech News was late. [50]

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 5 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. This is planned to happen in June or early July. [51][52]

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

21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical note: Liberty State Of Jefferson

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

User_talk:Liberty_State_Of_Jefferson#Hello_again

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

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

• 16:37, 3 June 2018 NeilN (talk | contribs) blocked Liberty State Of Jefferson (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
• 19:43, 11 June 2018 Ponyo (talk | contribs) blocked Liberty State Of Jefferson (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty_State_Of_Jefferson&oldid=845435847

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

SVG text rendered incorrectly despite using officially supported fonts

^{Copied from commons:Commons:Graphics_village_pump#SVG_text_rendered_incorrectly_despite_using_officially_supported_fonts ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)}

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've run into the librsvg small font-size quantization bug: Phab:T36947. Small font escapement and baseline placement have problems. For example, one of your files (File:Smartscreen-warning-2-arrow.svg) uses font sizes of 2.82222223px, 4.23333311px, 6.3499999px, 10.58333302px, 16.93333244px. That's small enough to tickle the bug.

For font-families, the list of supported fonts is not always right. I think your fonts can be found by librsvg, but they may not be found by other user agents (such as my browser). In any event, the font-family should include a generic font such as serif, sans-serif, or monospace.

The coordinate system used in the diagram is contorted (viewBox="0 0 132.29166 66.145833", translate(0,-230.85417)).

See also commons:Help:SVG, commons:Commons:Commons SVG Checker.

Glrx (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow Glrx, this is amazing. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all these points; I would probably never have found out!

I'm copying this to my talk page on en.wikipedia to remind myself of fixing these issues as soon as I can. The contorted coordinate system is a really strange thing. I was already surprised that Inkscape's SVG coordinate system seems to begin at the bottom left, but it made sense to me (mathematical x-y-coordinate systems do look like that). I have no idea where the crazy value of "-230.85417" comes from, and I will have a look at SVG manuals to learn what this "translate" attribute does. I'll inspect the source code and do a lot of cleanup there. The phabricator bug is also very nice to know. About the font-families, strange, I would have expected Inkscape to do that sort of thing automatically, at least for the very basic "serif" or "sans-serif" or "monospace" fallback. I wasn't aware that this is likely missing from all SVGs I have ever created!

The Commons SVG checker seems to be an awesome tool and just what I have been looking for, too. Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

El Dorado World Tour

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

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

Thank you for your welcome

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

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

External link

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

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

Hey BeitMeir!

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but here's what I noticed about the link:

• It is an external inline link in the body of the article, see Wikipedia:External links
• It is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Even if it was a reliable source, using it in exactly this way would not be an improvement to the encyclopedic article, see Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO (Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook)
• This specific website appears to be of very low quality. It has been created using a "homepage creator" for beginners and appears to be an advertisement for one specific product with an Amazon affiliate link.

I'm afraid that your addition of the link might have only one purpose: Generating revenue via Amazon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-24

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

Recent changes

• In the Wikipedia app for Android or iOS users can create reading lists. The reading lists can be seen on different devices if you are logged in to your account. There is now a browser extension so you can add pages to your reading list from a web browser. At the moment it works with Firefox and Chrome. [53]
• There is a new version of Pywikibot. Pywikibot is a tool to automate tasks on MediaWiki wikis. [54]

Problems

• The MonoBook skin was changed to make it work better for mobile users. This caused some problems. The change was rolled back to fix them. The new version is now back on the wikis. MonoBook users can opt out from the new responsive design. [55]

Changes later this week

• The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. For most wikis this will happen on 18 June. For the rest it will happen on 25 June. [56][57]

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

Meetings

• You can join the Readers Web team IRC office hour. There you can discuss tools to contribute on the mobile web for the existing MediaWiki skins. The meeting will be on 18 June at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You will be able to move local wiki files to Commons and keep their original data intact. This is planned to come to the first wikis in June.

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

21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Passenger

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

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

Hi Gerda Arendt!

You're right about the "credible information". I usually remove unsourced material instead of adding a "citation needed" tag if the information does not appear to be neutral or seems to be dubious. Only when the edit is made to a biography of a living person, I strictly remove unsourced material regardless of "credibility".

In this specific case, I should have added a "citation needed" tag or a source. The information was credible; it was even somehow already providing a possible source (likely the website of that opera building, or a news article reporting about the play). I'm not sure why I originally considered the edit to be dubious. I usually skip this specific kind of edits altogether, because my main intention when patrolling recent changes is to remove obviously disruptive edits, to deal with spam and to handle possible conflicts of interest. If it's not a stub, there are likely experienced editors watching the article and dealing with difficult-to-decide cases. This is why my list of contributions might look as if I'm always deleting unsourced information wherever I notice it. That's not the case; I skip a lot of edits, and I would normally have just skipped this one too.

Thank you for finding and adding a source -- I think that's a good improvement to the article, and I have wrongly used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: Here's what I usually deal with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, got it, - I just wondered, and you are right, others are watching. - I simply remove a lot, but when an addition makes sense, I try to rather look for a source. That's a great opera, btw --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ugresha Monastery

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

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

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

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

Hi 176.117.112.158

All I was trying to say is: Please be bold and remove any lies from the page. Instead of doing this, you had added a comment without actually fixing the problem. Is that really what you wanted to achieve? For comments, please add a new section on the article's talk page. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hope this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugresha_Monastery&diff=846141584&oldid=846020418&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from "Donald Trump"

I did nothing.

Sincerely,

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

Hi 2601:249:800:415F:C4D5:D8AB:54AA:799E,

You sadly appear to have accidentally broken an infobox template. Click here to see what I meant.

You might want to try using the Sandbox for test edits instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

comment

Per [58], the user just got checkuser-blocked. Which was no surprise at all... Guy (Help!) 21:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Sigh. Yep, I lacked background information on that one. Seemed to be someone complaining about a ClueBot false positive in good faith to me. I wouldn't call them an idiot though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's rather transparent block evasion. They should know better. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-25

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

Recent changes

• Syntax highlighting has been a beta feature on Wikimedia wikis with text written from left to right. It is now a normal feature. It is based on CodeMirror. [59]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

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

Future changes

• Some old web browsers will not be able to read the Wikimedia wikis. This is because they use an insecure way to connect to them. This means that we get less security for everyone else too. This affects about 0.08% of all traffic to the Wikimedia wikis. This affects for example those who read Wikipedia on a PlayStation 3. [60][61]
• The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. Because there is no new MediaWiki version this week it will happen on 25 June for most wikis. For the rest it will happen in early July. [62][63]
• All wikis that have not already done so will switch to use the Remex parsing library on 5 July. This is to replace Tidy. You can help fix remaining errors. [64]

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

21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Band name for moe.'s article

^{Note: This seems to be about this edit to Moe (band) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)}

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

Thank you

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

Hi 208.44.170.115,

Thank you too for the explanation and the improvement -- you might well be right! The edit originally made me raise an eyebrow because of the comma, and because it made the beginning of the article start with a lowercase letter. I have now only removed the comma, without undoing your edit again.

About the spelling, I'm not entirely sure: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter and the non-binding essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists -- but all the sources of the article use the spelling "moe." as well, suggesting that you're correct.

I see that you have requested moving the page, because the title is capitalized and does not have the period; thank you for taking the time to improve the article! I'm curious to see what other users think about this. Have a great day too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you be able to lend your support to the move, please? It seems that some of the previous "opposers" are objecting to the move (they supported a move to the current (wrong name) page). Yet, Wikipedia clearly shows that moe. (band) should be the right name as referenced here: WP:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Indicating_stylizations. The example cited is of deadmau5, yet there are plenty more articles in which a band/author/artist/person is listed in the correct style (all lowercase). Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This did not turn out well. You appear to have messaged a lot of other editors to join the discussion, which would not have been needed and has been interpreted as "canvassing". But that alone would not have been a huge problem, considering that you obviously did not know about the guideline, and that it is sometimes even misinterpreted by experienced editors. The problem was that you have repeated the same edit over and over again to force these changes into the article during the discussion. When coming back from the block, it would probably be a good idea to try to forget about this "moe." issue. You seem to be interested in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you seem to be interested in actually improving this encyclopedia, and what happened has enriched your experience. Shit happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

It turned out horribly. I made an honest mistake with the canvassing. I didn't intend anything malicious, and was unaware of the rule. Chalk it up to "lessons learned". What I will ask is if you could undo the malicious edit that was done by WoodenSuperman, please? If you look at what he did, he removed the entire formatting of the band's name throughout the article using a "replace all". What's interesting was that The article had been acceptable for years. Now, due to my request, the page looks horrible. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back!

I've copied your message to the article's talk page, because this is something I can not personally decide. It is something that would need to be discussed with the other editors. If they disagree, I think we will just have to accept that. Yes, the article has been changed as a result of a request for exactly the opposite of what happened. This might appear to be unfair, I can understand that!

However, there might not be much you and I can do. Let's just live with it. It won't really hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

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

Hey DBaK, it happens, and it's okay.

I know how much it can burn and hurt for months if the recipient does not answer to an apology, leaving the sender with a very strange feeling of emptiness. So: No worries, I can assure you that your discussion message is absolutely not a problem for me.

Because you are not explicitly referring to a specific page, I am unsure if it would be appropriate of me to provide a link to the page you're very likely talking about. I would like to do this, however, because I am creating a huge archive of all my longer conversations. It allows others to easily read a "chronology" of my edits and interactions with other editors. You'll notice that I have made mistakes as well; I feel that keeping these next to all the good things is probably the best thing one can ever do on their talk page. Would that be okay for you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, absolutely fine, and thank you for checking. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

VisualEditor: "bdi" tags in HTML source

See phabricator:T197916:

Please do not copy "bdi" tags into generated wikitext

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

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

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

Thank you very much in advance. :)

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

From Kamitra1 (Valora Noland)

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

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

STOP

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

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

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

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

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

Why did you delete my edit to Ballymoney High School?

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

Hey Halilooladsmynameislauren, thanks for your message, and thanks for creating an account!

Is this about the edits made by 2A00:23C5:F302:E600:49C7:8E20:80C:8614? See Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:F302:E600:49C7:8E20:80C:8614 for a list of these edits.

You might not have been doing all these edits; I assume that it is a shared IP address that you and other people in the school use. All of these edits have been adding unsourced information to articles; some of them have been doing so at biographies of living or recently deceased persons. If you, personally, had been making these edits, please read the following page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The specific edit you are probably talking about is here: View diff

I had undone it because the "101 years" appeared strange to me, and because there was no source for the whole paragraph. Entering the name "Mollie Holmes" in Google now appears to prove you correct in this regard, but we also need a source for the whole "Holmes wing" statement. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability

However, for now, I have restored your edit. I assume it to be correct, but just lacking a reference. Could you add one, like described here? Help:Referencing for beginners

Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:CS, WP:RS, WP:WPNOTRS blah blah blah... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Made me laugh in real life. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You know, Template:Guideline list is all you need. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As an additional note, please learn the way I answer these questions, it makes my life easier ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I will totally make a plain-text version of that, adding "This is the only warning template you will ever need" and "bad humorous advice" above it. I'll ping you when it's done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think linking tons of policies is humorous. Take it seriously man. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah--- oh. You do this actually. I wasn't aware of that. Hm. Not my style, but I do understand why you do that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikipedia is all about content creation, others are secondary. (including helping newcomers) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

One day, the current "content creators" will leave Wikipedia, and be replaced by frustrated new editors who have never been welcomed and who stubbornly edit-war over tiny bad content changes to their "own" articles because nobody ever took the time to lend them a helping hand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Sorry, I could not resist actually creating it: User:ToBeFree/uw-combined-1. No offense please. I respect your way of answering and I do see its benefits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You have so much time!!!!! ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well no one ever taught me anything. Self-learning is an important skill. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Saving this link here for now.

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

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

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198552

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

wikitech:Incident_documentation/20180615-phabricator-vandalism ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

SarahMitchels82

Hi!

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

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

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

Tech News: 2018-27

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

Recent changes

• The database for tags will be changed. This will happen on 2 July on French Wikipedia and 9 July on all other wikis. Please report if recent changes get slower or you can't save edits. This could especially affect editors who use the database on ToolForge. [65]

Problems

• Last week's MediaWiki update was rolled back. This was because of a database problem. [66]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

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

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

00:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey

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

I quickly went online & answered via HAN/IRC ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How about participating in AfC? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel honored by your suggestion, but I'll stick to translations for now. Somehow, I think that writing a new article from scratch is best done by native speakers, while translation allows me to help the community in a way that most native speakers can't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I mixed that up with Wikipedia:Requested_articles! I might consider having a closer look at AfC later, but Huggle keeps me busy well enough ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

BDI tags break wikilinks: Proof

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

• 04:42, 1 March 2018 Gilliam (talk | contribs) blocked 107.77.249.11 (talk) with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{anonblock}} )
• 04:52, 12 January 2018 Gilliam (talk | contribs) blocked 107.77.249.11 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{anonblock}} )
• 08:19, 26 October 2017 Oshwah (talk | contribs) blocked 107.77.249.11 (talk) with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{anonblock}} )
• 03:32, 21 September 2017 Gilliam (talk | contribs) blocked 107.77.249.11 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{anonblock}})
• 12:38, 14 August 2017 There'sNoTime (talk | contribs) blocked 107.77.249.11 (talk) with an expiration time of 60 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism)

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

Tech News: 2018-28

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

Recent changes

• WebM video files have smaller file size but still be of the same quality. Creating WebM files will take longer time. [67]
• The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. This was supposed to already have happened but was delayed. For most wikis this will happen on 9 July. For the rest it will happen on 16 July. [68]
• All wikis now use the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy. This could cause errors. You can help fix the errors. [69]

Problems

• When you rolled back an edit it could get both the Rollback and Undo tags. This has been fixed. [70]
• Rollbacks from autopatrolled users were not marked as patrolled. This has been fixed. [71]

Changes later this week

• When you edit a link in the visual editor there will be two separate buttons to change which page the link goes to (target) or its text (label). [72][73]
• On the mobile version you can find a link to an editor's contributions from their user page. Now this will work even if they haven't created a user page. [74]
• When you edit a discussion on the mobile version you sometimes get your signature automatically added. This will now not happen if you have already added a signature manually. This is to avoid double signatures. [75]
• Structured discussions toolbars will have more style options. [76]
• When you look at Wikimedia code in Gerrit there will be a new interface. It is on by default for new users. This is also true for developers. This is to make it easier to understand what is happening. [77]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 July. It will be on all wikis from 12 July (calendar).

Meetings

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

Future changes

• Today all administrators can edit CSS and JavaScript for the entire wiki. There will be a new user group for editing CSS and JavaScript. Administrators will no longer automatically be able to do this. This is because it is a security risk when all administrator accounts can edit JavaScript even if they never plan to or do not know how it works. You can read more. [78]
• Page previews will be on by default for new accounts. [79]

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

23:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

About the Valora Noland article

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

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

The following text had originally been added to my user page. The "SO SORRY" is likely referring to this unusual place for a message. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC) SO SORRY! I don't know where to leave you a message about my edits on my Valora Noland page, so I'll put it here. When you answer, you can tell me where it should have been placed. Yes, Kamitra 1 is (now getting pretty old) Valora Noland. I wrote the original bio, or enlarged what was there, correcting stuff. Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop. What, just what, do you not approve of? The one who was in show biz is the subject of the article, not the one who went on to other things, Baum family, or whatever. I think this bio should be kept to my experience with show business. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Whoops! Hey Kamitra1, nice to meet you. Feel free to add messages to my talk page – this is probably the best way for contacting other editors, as they will automatically get notified of the edit and can easily respond there. To make sending a message an easy process, there is a "New section" button at the top of every talk page. When using it, there is no need to worry about the position of the message; it will automatically be moved to the bottom, where the newest messages appear. Why the bottom, you may wonder? Because that way, the text can be conveniently read from the top to the bottom in a chronological order. More information about talk pages can be found here: Help:Talk pages I was unsure about undoing your edit. Before you had sent me a message, I have already restored it, to be on the safe side. I have also already modified the information message regarding the edit, on your talk page. No need to worry! You might wonder why I have undone the edit in the first place. This is because it didn't appear to be neutral to me (see "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view") and removed a "citation needed" template without actually adding a proper citation. The problem here is that "I am the subject of the article, so I don't need to provide sources" is sadly not a valid argument. There are multiple things that come to my mind regarding this: Writing autobiographies, and editing articles about yourself, is strongly discouraged: Wikipedia:Autobiography We have a very strict policy regarding biogaphies of living persons, which exists to protect you! Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons The subject of an article is often not considered to be a reliable, neutral source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources We have a FAQ page for article subjects, explaining how to get help if the article about you appears to be incorrect: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects I'm sad to have to say this, and I am surprised that nobody has taken the time to explain this issue yet, but I am afraid I have to ask you to avoid making further edits to this specific article, unless you are removing untrue statements according to our "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" policy. If you notice errors in the article, or would like to expand it, you can do so by copying the article to your userspace: Help:Userspace_draft – Feel free to make any modifications there, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. The changes will then be merged into the article, and everyone can be happy. I'll send you a belated Welcome message now. You have been here since June 2009, longer than me! It is long overdue that someone appropriately welcomes you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC) This text has been moved and indented by ToBeFree 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC): Here I go again. Looked for the 'button' you mentioned called "New Section Button", but couldn't locate. I did see that you don't want my dialogue for Valora Noland. I think your current version is okay, except, first, you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important, because Tom Lisanti mentioned me in one of his Hollywood books, and he copied what he wrote from articles he had gathered from the 1960s, an piece in TV guide among them. In that article, (50 to 75% false), the author said I played bit parts to try and get into the business. NOT EXACTLY. This is as much as saying I was offering my body to try and get into the business. Rather, I just happened to connect with a top agent, Dick Clayton, before I had moved to tinsel town. (A funny piece of info here is that the "peculiar little man" told me he was responsible for sending James Dean to Dick Clayton. You won't find this mentioned anywhere else, and IT will say other things happened. I can't remember the talent scouts name, so this interesting tidbit should probably not be repeated.) Now you know why I included Dick Clayton in the bio. I also noticed a few typos in your revised version. I'll have to look at what you wrote again, but if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress. I wish I had cared more about making good money! The "Up Your Teddy Bear" thing, first called "Mother", and now "The Seduction of a Nerd" really did happen, probably with John Dereks participation, as he was a good friend of Don Joslyn. I was too, for a short time, friends with Don. They were interested in look-alikes, and I suppose the whole thing was an innocent game-----at that time. But the film today is a little more rancid than at first, and I feel I have the right to say I didn't choose to be in it, nor was I asked, living on the East Coast at the time it was made. Don is determined to claim it really was me to the end. He used a few seconds of a film clip for a closeup in the scene clapping hands with Wally, and the other shots in that scene were someone else, as well as the closeup portrait at the end of the film. The problem with "Mother" aka etc. is that it does not have a leading character one can have much liking for. Hollywood usually keeps records. Dick Clayton was with the Famous Artists Agency, and the people he represented are listed somewhere in archives. Same for anything else. Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation! A word here about "Jewish". Actually, I find one aspect of "Jewish" very interesting, and that is that there is no scientific Jewish race. The root of the Jews is the Middle East, and the genealogy, even if many look similar, is Middle Eastern. They have a religious belief in marrying within the Jewish community, and over 4000 years it has produced certain similarities, but it is still a large family showing signs of genealogical hand-me-down, not a race unto itself. There are people of Palestine who have no record of "Jewish" going back many centuries who look just like the Jews. In a c. 1970 Encyclopedia, under "Jews as a Race", Jewish scholar Raphael Patti says Jews are a religion, social and religious traditions, history of the Jews, and a country, but not a race! This is my only peeve with Jewish. "Jewish Race" began with the Jews as a religious belief or tradition. I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities. I don't have it at home, don't really like it, was not the one who initially placed the page on Valora Noland, will not become a computer nerd, will not master the Wikipedia, and I thank you for your understanding that I'm better at gardening. Perhaps some days until I answer you again, if there is more to say. Thanks, Kamitra1 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Ping Drmies because this is about edits made by us two after the original message. Ping Kamitra1, I have moved this here; I hope this is okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Really, all I have to say is that content needs to be relevant and well-verified by way of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Message from Kamitra1 on June 20th Hello Again, I realized yesterday after Leaving long message in the wrong place again, that I should check my email before going to Wikipedia. There I did find multiple messages from you, and finally cognate that the button I need to click is on your talk page. I said there are a few typos in the current V. Noland bio. I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. "Her mother ...." etc. At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after "Star Trek", as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series. At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon. I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of. That the talent scout made it possible for me to meet with Dick Clayton, a top agent, and that Mr. Clayton decided to sign me up before I left the Pasadena Playhouse is show biz data, and as I said in my message yesterday, important. I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up, but if we can get it just fine as we both agree, and lock it from further changes by anyone, that would be good. I'm one of a small number of earthlings who don't have much fondness for computers and the internet, though I use both as necessary, these days going to the library to get on the net. So sometimes, I only check my email once a week. Thanks, (and I think there is still another typo than what I've just mentioned) Valora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Kamitra1: Hey, nice to meet you again. Please don't worry about the "wrong place", the message has reached me after all. There's a reason that the page is not locked for editing. I'm copying the suggestions to the article's talk page, to allow others to fix all possible problems pointed out by you, and to improve the article based on your suggestions. We'll definitely have a look at that. If there is something absolutely blatantly wrong or libellous, you can go ahead and remove it, but this does not appear to be the case, so I hope it won't hurt if we take some days to address all these points in detail. I'll mention/notify you as soon as I'm continuing to work on this issue; that should be this weekend, I think. I hope this helps and wish you a nice day. See you later this week! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Kamitra1: ^ Here's the copy I've mentioned. See you! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) So, as already announced, here's my longer reply. Multiple things I need to clarify first: It was not me who redacted the "current" version of the article, except for the changes that I have later implemented on your request above. Please have a look at the article's version history to see all the changes and all the users who made them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history Nobody, not the article subject, not the page creator, noone, owns an article: Wikipedia:Ownership of content Especially when writing about living persons, we need to be very careful to write only relevant, verifiable, and reliably sourced facts. This is meant to protect you, as a person, from libel, and is definitely not meant to discourage you from editing or to avoid including any facts. However, as everyone could claim to "know the facts", this alone is not a valid argument. What we need, for every sentence you would like to add to the article, is a reliable source. A reliable source is not "I'm the subject, I know it". Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Because of exactly that policy, we will happily remove any unsourced statements from the page. Drmies did that, and this is why the article has suddenly noticeably decreased in size. Again, this is meant to protect you, and if I understand correctly, this has even benefited you. You have contested the validity of some statements in the article, and these are gone now. If there are untrue, unsourced statements left, please let us know immediately, and we will remove them. In such a case, you may even remove them yourself -- just please make sure not to replace it by other unsourced content. Removing is okay, replacing is questionable. What "we both agree" on, sadly, does not necessarily matter. A page can be protected against editing, but the policies for this are strict and it won't help in this specific case. A page can not be protected to save your own preferred version; a page will only be protected to prevent vandalism, disruption, edit warring, repeated addition of libellous material etc.: Wikipedia:Protection_policy About the changes you're requesting to be made: I have implemented some of them, because I think that they are really good suggestions. Your editing requests: "Someone has been screwing around with this bio, put Dick Clayton's name as the name of the talent scout, and more. B.S. I know folks who have been in front of the camera are fun for people to make fun of, but I do wish it would stop."  Done by Drmies. If it happens again, please leave a message here on this talk page. You may remove any libellous content, without replacing it, without discussing it before. You should, however, explain your removal. Please state clearly in your edit summary that you are "removing untrue content from a biography of a living person". Afterwards, please leave a short note on the bottom of this talk page here, for our information. This could be something like "I have removed an untrue statement from the article again, because it had no reliable source. ~~~~" "[…]you have left out the business of getting an agent, Dick Clayton (who was one of Hollywood's top agents) before I left the Playhouse. This is important[…]"  Comment: As Drmies said, and as I am trying to explain above, you would need to provide reliable sources for this, and it would also need to be relevant to the article. If you can provide reliable sources for a specific suggested addition to the article, feel free to suggest it here. I think that I might actually add it, but maybe someone decides to remove it because they do not consider it to be relevant enough. If that happens, a discussion might start, which you would be very welcome to participate in. "I also noticed a few typos in your revised version."  Done, I hope. Please point any other specific typos that you see. "if you deleted studying with Jeff Cory and Robert Gist, this is important, because it shows serious intent to become a good actress."  Comment: Not without a reliable source. "The 'Up Your Teddy Bear' thing, first called 'Mother', and now 'The Seduction of a Nerd' really did happen"  Comment: Sorry, but not without a reliable source. This policy is meant to protect you against libellous statements. Especially if you have experienced libel before, I hope that you appreciate our strict approach to this. Me living in Sonoma County doesn't really need a citation!  Comment: Oh yes, it does! It does, it does, it does. Please. If it is so obvious and verifiable, it should not be a problem to take one minute of your precious time to find a reliable source and add it. Side note: Imagine someone adds "lives in North Korea" to your article and claims they're the article subject. What do you expect us to do? "A word here about 'Jewish'."  Done by Drmies: The words "Jew" or "Jewish" are not currently appearing in the article. I assume this is okay? "I think the internet will only go another ten or twelve years because of misuse of its possibilities."  Comment: “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, co-inventor of Ethernet, 1995 (Szczerba, Robert J. "15 Worst Tech Predictions Of All Time". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-06-21.) "I think it would be better, first sentence, to use a period not a semi-colon. 'Her mother ....' etc."  Done by me, thanks for the good suggestion! "At the end of bio, I think it would be better to end the paragraph after 'Star Trek', as it was not a film but an episode in a TV series."  Done by me, sounds good! This is exactly the kind of edit requests that I hope everyone will be happy to implement at any time, whenever you request it. "At the very bottom you have mentioned my three books. "Horse Stories" should have quotation marks in its title, which indicates a special usage of the words Horse Stories. My book is not stories in the usual sense, but all about one horse. It can be bought as a print on demand book from Amazon."  Comment: Not done yet, as this does not seem to be based on an actual Wikipedia guideline, but rather on your personal interpretation of the book title. If you can provide a quote from the Manual of Style that supports your suggestion, I will happily implement it. Otherwise, it appears to be typographically inconsistent to me. The other book titles are not written with quotation marks and you don't want quotation marks there? I'm sure you will locate what I wrote yesterday about Dick Clayton, and I think you will find a way to put it back, perhaps in your own words other than mine which you don't approve of.  Comment: No, that's not the problem. The problem is lack of a reliable source, not my opinion on the choice of words. In this specific case, there's another policy that is important to be taken care about: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "[That is,] […] as I said in my message yesterday, important." Sorry, but nobody owns an article, so there is no specific person that can authoritatively decide what is "important" and what is not. However, feel free to suggest a sentence to be added to the article, which is backed by a reliable source. I think it is strange that you have decreed I should not have further access to my Wikipedia page. I am not the one who screwed it up […]  Comment: I agree, and I disagree at the same time. Yes, you have not "screwed the article up". Instead of removing wrong statements, you have replaced them by other unsourced, possibly non-neutral statements. While you are always free to remove wrong unsourced statements from the page, you are strongly discouraged from attempting to replace it by a better version. That's not my personal idea, that's a widely accepted guideline: Wikipedia:Autobiography -- I am, however, very surprised that nobody before me has mentioned this guideline to you in nearly 10 years of editing. That's certainly a fault on our own side here at Wikipedia; we can not blame you for this. We need to be self-critical here: We should have told you about this earlier, and someone should have clarified all these points above much, much earlier. This is not your fault, and I can completely understand that it negatively surprises you. I'm sorry for the late explanation, but I think that this is better done late than never. Just to clarify for later readers: WP:AUTO has already been a widely accepted community guideline in 2005. It has received some media attention because Jimbo Wales had allegedly violated the guideline himself "at least 18 times". ("Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio - Slashdot". slashdot.org. Retrieved 2018-06-21.) @Kamitra1: I hope this helps. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Message from 26 June 2018 (original title: "From Kamitra1 (Valora Noland)"; moved from ToBeFree's talk page 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)) It has taken me some days to get back here. I am 76-1/2-yrs-old now, but not senile. I mention my age, for it may make some difference as to how interested one might be in spending one's days on the internet as you may be doing. A few things. "Not without a reliable source." This is as much as saying I must be lying. Who better than I who was in Hollywood during most of the 1960s and lived the life in question? "Horse Stories" is for sale on Amazon. If you want to see the title as it is, there is picture of the book cover on an Amazon site which shows the title with quotation marks, so please add them to the reference. What better proof than this? I actually studied with acting coach Sherman Marks as well as the other two I mentioned. Sherman was the last, and a kind man in comparison to Robert Gist. Jeff Cory's acting lab was something I started soon after moving to H. from the Playhouse. Need "reliable source"? I think you are a trouble maker first, and a Wikipedia editor second, or whoever took this out of my bio. As I already wrote, to say I had an agent (who just happened to be one of the top ones) before I left the Playhouse is important data, and Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961. No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words. One could say: "...stage name. A talent scout spotted her in a Pasadena market and connected her to a top Hollywood agent, Dick Clayton, who agreed to represent her, all this before she left the Playhouse." I didn't remain with Dick Clayton, and he didn't stay perpetually with Famous Artists. I think it is also important and interesting show biz data that a fine agent is not always the best answer for an actor, as they may spend most of their time on their already successful clients, James Dean, Jane Fonda, Harrison Ford, and others. The "Jewish" paragraph I entered last week was in response to someone thinking it was important to link my show biz page to info on birth certificates and the Baum family, as though they were seeking to link me to Jewish, not always beneficial in this world. Bring out the greater truth whenever possible ........ (i.e., don't continue the idea of hand-me-down or genealogic Jewish identity. It is no different, as I see it, than saying someone is genealogically Catholic. I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense. This is how I think it is with putting me in the sandbox, and messing with my page in the first place. It was quite alright as it was. Kamitra1 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Hey Kamitra1, Welcome back. I'm sorry if anything we did or wrote made you feel like being treated as "senile". I do not believe that anyone has actually intended that. If the feeling persists, please point out what makes you think so, so that we can avoid this in the future. Nobody is saying that you're lying. It is unlikely that any of us even thinks that. I don't. However, to protect you, as a person, from libel and defamation, Wikipedia requires so-called "reliable sources", especially for articles about living people. Asking for these "reliable sources" does not imply that anyone thinks you'd be lying. Article subjects directly editing "their" articles are very likely doing so in good faith. They might, however, be unaware of their conflict of interest. The result are often well-meant non-neutral edits, biased towards a certain personal viewpoint. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia which strives to describe topics in a neutral way. To avoid this problem entirely, the "sandbox" idea exists: You can edit a copy of the article in any way you want, and the changes will be verified by experienced editors. This has nothing to do with "senility"; I think that most of these editors are successful businesspeople writing about their companies and achievements. The term "sandbox" might sound belittling because children play in sandboxes. This is not the message the term is meant to convey here on Wikipedia. We call it a "sandbox" because it allows the user to experiment with the syntax, and because it allows the user to make frequent small edits without having to fear about leaving the article in an unfinished state. It allows users to be bold even more than they're already encouraged to be when editing articles directly. Children use real sandboxes because it lets their imagination run free, in an unconstrained, nearly rule-free environment. This is exactly the same reason why we, as adult Wikipedia editors, use "sandboxes" as well. If it makes you feel better, most experienced editors have a "sandbox" they use to draft their articles. I used a sandbox to translate Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) step by step, before releasing the finished translation to the public. Using a sandbox before making changes go public is a sign of prudence, not childishness. Back to "reliable sources"; emphasis mine: "[…] Famous Artists could be contacted to verify I signed with them in 1961." Sorry, but this is very unlikely to be what we do at Wikipedia. Being forced to privately contact individuals for verification is not what "verifiability" is about. Wikipedia:Verifiability No one may want to bother, but a sure verification is there. I think it is the act of a bully to take this out, or not to re-add it in other words. It is also not about "bullying". https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html Like Jimbo already wrote in 2006, "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference." You are encouraged to find and provide a reliable source, if you would like your text to be in the biographical article about a living person. "[…] or whoever took this out of my bio." Please have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valora_Noland&action=history You can click the "prev" link next to any change to start browsing through the article's history. I think I might not even be the intended target of your accusation. I'm just investing hours of my free time to answer lengthy questions by annoyed actors on Wikipedia, to explain things I have not necessarily even done myself. One last thing, I am not hiding behind a false name, have no need to. I think people who contribute or control on the internet and do not reveal their true name are hiding because they are not really okay to be doing what they are. Maybe okay as civil law sees it, but not in the greater sense. I am not either; my pseudonym matches my real name. There's even a photo of me on my user page. However, before complaining about anyone for protecting their identity, please read the following two articles: Gamergate controversy, Doxing Some Wikipedia administrators, for example, are regularly the target of harassment and threats of violence. There's also a reason that faces of people accused of crime, and faces of policemen, are sometimes blurred on TV and in newspapers. This is not an issue dedicated to the Internet. Witness protection has already existed in the US back in 1871. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Valora Noland bio I see "Horse Stories" got its quotation marks. Thank you. It is just a lot of bother to fish for old records from Famous Artists which would verify that I started with that agency and Dick Clayton in 1961. I wrote you a possible other way of entering the info at the end of first paragraph. My changed version could finish with "agreed to represent her, giving her cause to leave the Playhouse." The Pasadena Playhouse was a 3-yr. course, and I regret leaving when I did to go to Hollywood. So, for those who might be interested in my brief career, it says why I landed in Hollywood when I did. It was because of the talent scout who should have left me alone ----- or, I should have asked Mr. Clayton if he would still represent me if I finished another year and a half. Would you like me to get old records which prove I attended the Playhouse? You are being unfair, but I have to let you do what you like. At the bottom you (I assume) have added Divine Machine two times. #5 is a duplicate, and would you please remove it? The Divine Machine was published by yours truly in a limited edition of 100 copies, and is available only from one small shop in San Francisco, and they don't mail copies. It has three fold-outs which I taped onto the relevant pages, and for this book to be mass-produced it will need very special print shop robots! Also, it is very expensive to print (a lot of color), and expensive to buy. It might be best to leave it off the page. Also, it seems this reference goes to a second line, so the full sub-title could be shown on the page. But again, maybe delete. Divine Machine. Capital "M" please on Machine. Thanks,Kamitra1 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) @Kamitra1:, welcome back. Before I answer further, please read my latest message at Talk:Valora_Noland#Editing_requests_by_Kamitra1. I am afraid that you have not seen it yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC) More from Kamitra1 Hello Again, Interesting 60 Minutes last night, about the bank robber who became a distinguished law professor. If we follow the Masters, we will come forward, a little or a lot. I see a message from you which says you want to know that I have read what you have written. I think I did, or have. I find all of this less than agreeable, as you have (or you and others) have delighted in taking important facts out of my bio. But my life has more chapters than the earliest one in Hollywood. My bio now says I have "authored books "Horse Stories", The Divine Machine, and Water Lily Ponds." I don't see any reason for having a reference for Divine Machine below, linked to Amazon. Amazon, and others I'm sure, has for MANY years had Divine Machine in its data base. It is a result of the isbn # leading them to list the book, but this does not mean there is a publication of the book. Also, the subtitle was/is not fully written there, missing the last part, "structure of life." So the fact that this mini publication is showing up on Amazon (and as unavailable), is because of automation. I think it would be appropriate to take this lower ref. (second mention of the book) off the page. Since you call yourself "ToBeFree", you might be interested in Divine Machine. In most cases, people copy knowledge from a book, as in to pass a test, but it doesn't go very deep. If we can come to new knowledge on our own without being told, then it enters the blood stream. D. M. offers this possibility.Kamitra1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Hello Kamitra1 thank you for taking the time to read the long message. I was hoping that it would explain the situation in a way that is agreeable for you. Hm. I'm not saying that the other chapters of your life don't belong into the article. They would probably be a enrichment, completing the currently incomplete article. I do understand that. The problem is not so much relevance – the problem is a lack of reliable secondary sources. It would not help to call anyone for a personal verification; what Wikipedia needs is real verifiability by published sources. Is it "unfair" to treat everyone equally, by requiring everyone alike to adhere to established Wikipedia policies, and then writing detailled explanations if someone has questions about them? We are not treating this article differently than all the other biographies about living people. We are not asking you anything else than we'd ask other people in this situation. I would be surprised if anyone is actually unfairly biased against you or your edits. We're commenting on content, not the contributor, and we're making sure that nobody is unjustly being preferred. About the policies I've mentioned above, these are: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you feel that Drmies or me are misinterpreting these, wrongly explaining these; if you feel that we are actually being unfair, please explicitly explain this. Wikipedia has multiple places that can help with dispute resolution; see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution If this discussion is going in circles, and you would like a third, neutral opinion on the case, please say so; I will then add a link to this discussion to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. This would be an appropriate, non-formal next step that I personally would take if I was in your situation and felt being treated unfairly. I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page (Talk:Valora Noland), especially because one might be requesting input from other editors later. When replying, please reply at Talk:Valora Noland, so that we have a central point of discussion about this issue. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC) More from Valora This text has been moved from my talk page. ToBeFree, 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I just read my bio again, and you have more than taken the color out of it. You don't know show business, or you would know why certain things were in the long-existing prior text. Please remove the incompletely worded Amazon reference to Divine Machine. I told you on the last comm. that it is only because I got an isbn # that Amazon is listing it, and this does not mean the book is available in book stores or anywhere (which it is not). The publication I did on DM is spiral bound and does not qualify for Library of Congress inclusion. It would have to be perfect bound. Nonetheless, homosapiens may make their own books if they like: there is no law against it. The reference at the bottom of the page does not make sense. Please remove it. You have disqualified a whole lot of interesting Valora Noland info no one would know except one who was living the life, such as that the improvised scene done for 5 Finger Exercise was cut BECAUSE the author of the play (which was on Broadway), had not put a scene like that in his script and didn't like it that it had been added by the director of the movie. But you think you know it all and have taken this and a whole lot else out, pretending I am not a reliable source. Absurd. I think you have other motivations than Wiki truth.Kamitra1 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC) @Kamitra1: Please have a look at the article's history to verify if I have actually done what you are attributing to me. Specifically, the only edits that I have ever made to the page without undoing them myself, or without having already been undone by you, are: Added a "COI" tag above the article: diff link Implementing a change requested by you: diff link Fixing a typo that you had pointed out: diff link Implementing a change suggested by you: diff link Removing "currently lives in Northern California", because it was not provided by any source: diff link Implementing a change requested by you, after manually having searched for a reference link: diff link Implementing a change requested by you that was not even given by the source: diff link Undoing another editor's unsourced addition of unreliably sourced information: diff link You may be complaining about these two edits here, which have been undone, so these edits had no effect on the current version of the article: 1, undone by you, 2, undone by myself to not start an edit war. You are complaining about an incomplete reference; I might have missed that part when replying, so I have now removed "Divine Machine" with its reference from the list -- which surprises me. You had been complaining about the removal of unsourced material; now I am specifically asked by you to remove something I have actually taken the time to find a reference for. If nobody except yourself has ever published anything about that part of your life, then there is maybe not a reliable, verifiable, neutral secondary source available for it, and it would maybe not meet Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability. That's not really something I can personally fix, even if I like to. Please really have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style. Please really do. And note that I have not written that policy but think it's a good one. Please also keep this in mind: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects I'm moving this to the article's talk page and asking for a third opinion, as I have offered in my last message. Maybe this helps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Third opinion I have looked through the history of this page and read the above. I'd like to thank the contributors for all their work so far. To Kamitra1, welcome, I hope to encourage you to contribute to this encyclopedia in ways that will be positive for you and for the encyclopedia. This has to include careful consideration of WP:AUTO and WP:RS, and your frustrations so far may possibly be remedied by a fuller understanding of these fundamental policies of Wikipedia. In particular, please note that we are limited to comments that can be reliably sourced - and, even though it's your own life, you don't count as a usable source. Nor does anyone else count as a reliable source for their own life, so it's only fair. IMDB is not normally considered a reliable source either - it's crowdsourced and not really checked. Furthermore, adding any facts, even reliably sourced ones, to your own page is not acceptable. If you have a reliable source, put it on the talk page with a draft of your suggested edit. Someone will be along very soon to consider it, and probably use it. If they aren't, feel free to ping myself or ask Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Looking at the page as it stands, almost none of it is, in our terms, reliably sourced. The only items that might possibly qualify are the book publications and, if I were in a position to check it, the three pages of Tom Lisanti's book. However, your own comments above about Mr Lisanti do not encourage me to classify him as entirely reliable. Personally I would probably encourage you to write your autobiography - elsewhere - and recommend this page for deletion. But the heart of this third opinion is, please read WP:AUTO and WP:RS carefully before making any more contributions. I do hope that this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

More from Kamitra1

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

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

More from Valora

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

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

Huggle message

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

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

Tech News: 2018-29

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

Recent changes

• You can now use global preferences on Wikimedia wikis. You can set them on the global preferences page. [80]
• You can now see a new log of pages being created at Special:Log/create. It includes pages which are later deleted. It is now available on all Wikimedia wikis except Commons and Wikidata. [81]
• You can see how many pageviews a wiki had from specific countries. The Wikistats2 maps have now been updated. [82]

Changes later this week

• Your watchlist will show changes from the last seven days instead of three. If you have already set a length preference it will not change. [83]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from July 18. It will be on all wikis from July 19 (calendar).

Meetings

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

Future changes

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

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

16:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious

fighting vandalism

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

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

Wow! This is so nice, Gerda Arendt, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the expressive images, grow a rainbow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Military vet

^{Note: This is likely about this edit to Woodville, Texas ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)}

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

Hey Persontr.

Thank you for your message, and thank you for adding information to Wikipedia.

Just to clarify the situation: Are you in any way affiliated with that person? Please have a look at the "Welcome!" message on your talk page for more information: User_talk:Persontr

I have undone the edit because it added the name of one single person to the lead section of the article. This is rarely neutral, and rarely relevant for the lead section.

Is there a specific reason why you chose not to add the name to the list of notable persons in that article instead?

If he is notable, I would recommend creating an article about him first... unless you are affiliated with them in any way -- see your talk page.

Possibly relevant guideline about the lead section and levels of useful detail: Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_detail

Definitely useful, plain and simple guide about conflicts of interest: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

I hope this helps! Feel free to ask me if there are any questions left. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey

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

Hey, thanks Abelmoschus Esculentus - as you probably know, ClueBot III already does that here: Messages older than 3 months get automatically archived to the already-existing archive. I'm just very active. I am considering to decrease the archival time. The page has already reached its "maximum" duration, and old posts are currently getting archived while new ones come. If the rate stays constant, the page length would stay constant -- which might indeed not be desirable with a page length of 300k bytes. At least I know now that I get about 100kB of talk page messages every month. That's cool. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just set that as 30d. Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 01:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Follow-up @Abelmoschus Esculentus: ClueBot III is down since July 01, 10:31. (contributions / talk page discussion) That explains why the page has grown even more than expected, but 30d is definitely a good idea. I will migrate to Lowercase sigmabot III if the problem persists. I have been using ClueBot instead because its concept seemed to be more sympathic and well-conceived than the others to me, but that's just my subjective impression. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus:  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi ToBeFree, thank you very much for your kind comments and your patience in working with me on the Liferay article. Yotaml2 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Yotaml2, this made my day! Feel free to ask at any time if new questions arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-30

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

• When you log in to your account you can choose to keep being logged in. This checkbox now works better than before on the mobile version for users without JavaScript. [84]
• Wikis that use Citoid can automatically generate citations for Swedish news sites. This only works in the visual editor. This now works for Swedish public service radio. More will come. Others could use this to add news sites in other languages in the future. [85]
• Editors can do max 90 edits per minute. This is new since last month. This does not affect bots or administrators. [86]

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 25 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

09:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-31

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 design on Special:Log has changed. It will change again soon. Developers are working on fixing problems. [87]

Problems

• Deployment of 1.32.0-wmf.13 has been partially delayed. All deployments have been resumed and successfully done after bug fixes. [88][89]
• Deployment of 1.32.0-wmf.14 has been partially delayed. [90][91]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 August. It will be on all wikis from 2 August (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 31 July 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 1 August at 15:00 (UTC) as well as at 23:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• After a community discussion, a new group for users will be created. "Interface administrators" will be the only users allowed to edit interface pages like MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js. This is done to avoid technical issues and improve security. That change will be effective by the end of August 2018.

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

14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking My Update to Company Information (Factual)

Thanks, ToBeFree. I will check out that policy and make sure that I comply. However, the edits posted were meant to provide completely up-to-date, factual information on a change in Dominion's ownership and management. The company a U.S. company and the page no longer reflects whatever officer claims were on the existing page, which were not timely or accurate and were anonymously posted. A link was provided as further evidence of the factual nature of these changes, and several false claims were also removed. Therefore, you have actually blocked the correction and may be responsible for known harm to our company as long as this misinformation is allowed to be published on this site. As you must surely know, elections are being targeted by foreign adversaries looking to spread misinformation, and we really do need the help of the world to promote accurate information on U.S. elections and the businesses that support the voting process. In the meantime, I am going to check and see if we need to report this experience to our federal authorities who share our concerns. Thank you. HelloKay (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello HelloKay, nice to meet you. The last sentence of your message is worrying me. Please read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats and reconsider if this is really the kind of message you wanted to leave on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup re lepidoptera.eu links

Thanks for doing the research, discussion and work to identify and cleanup the lepidoptera.eu links. I'd seen them added and was suspicious but hadn't taken the effort to address it. Thanks again and keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SchreiberBike, oh, good to hear that more people have been watching this potential issue.

Thank you very much for your message, this means a lot to me :) I think I'll be able to finish the whole list this week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 The amazing and gratifying thing about Wikipedia is that there are people willing to do the work that needs to be done. When I see someone doing something I knew should be done, but didn't have the time and energy to do, it makes me optimistic about the project.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! About Wikipedia: I completely agree! I love it! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-32

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

• Special:NewPages now has the OOUI look. [92]

Problems

• The MediaWiki version that was released two weeks ago was late to some Wikimedia wikis. This was because of bugs. It was on all wikis 30 July. [93][94]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 August. It will be on all wikis from 9 August.

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 7 August 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 8 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

19:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-33

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

• CSS in templates can now be stored in a separate page on all wikis. This is called TemplateStyles. This is to make it easier to edit how templates look. [95]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

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 14 August 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 15 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The developers are planning more ways to block users. This could be blocking someone from just a page or a namespace. You can read more. You can leave feedback on the talk page. [96]

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

17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-34

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

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 August. It will be on all wikis from 23 August (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The 2018 Community Wishlist Survey begins on 29 October. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals from 29 October to 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 16 November to 30 November.
• Legacy JavaScript global variables have been deprecated for seven years. They will soon be removed from all wikis. Gadgets and scripts that use them will stop working. You can test your community's gadgets on "group0" wikis. For example Test Wikipedia or mediawiki.org. The legacy JavaScript global variables are already disabled there. You can read the migration guide to fix old scripts. [97]

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

16:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I want to notice that I don’t receive any contributions with my account. Thank You!--Ronco Liquidation (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronco Liquidation, Nice to meet you! You mean "compensation"? Please note that "compensation" is broadly construed, and that doing these edits as your job would be considered to be paid editing. If this is the case, you must disclose this, per Wikipedia's Terms of Service. Could you clarify your connection to Ronco, please? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Response

Hi, like a dais I’m not paid for my edits, I choose my account name just because I did want this name to edit. Thank You again!--Ronco Liquidation (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For context: ToBeFrees response

(Copied back from User talk:Ronco Liquidation for context ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC))

I had copied the above message back to User talk:Ronco Liquidation, which had been cleared at that time, for context. When doing so, I added the following section as an explanation. ~ToBeFree

Notice about deletion of messages from your talk page

Don't worry: This is okay. You may remove any of these messages, whenever you like to, and you do not need to specify a reason. I also do not want to annoy you by adding stuff to a page you appear to prefer empty. I am only adding the above message because it was missing for context of the other messages. Feel free to delete that all as well. I personally prefer archiving instead of deleting messages, and I can set up an archive for you, if you like to. If this sounds interesting, just add a message on my talk page, I'll handle the rest. On my talk page, at the top, you can see how this would look like.

With your current username, but also in general, I personally would recommend adding a notice like "I am not affiliated with Ronco in any way, and I do not receive money or any kind of other compensation for my edits, broadly construed. I have chosen my username because I registered only to edit the Ronco article. My account is not shared with other people, and will never be." to your user page. Of course only if this is really true! :)

Have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Response 2

(added "2" to the section heading; converted both to level 3 headings ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC))

👍--Ronco Liquidation (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ronco Liquidation: I assume this means "all right, but no archive please" -- else, please clarify. :) Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Sydney Grammar School

May I ask what your issue with the edits (like alumni, co-curricular are etc.); these are not opinion as much as facts, since they relate to numbers? I.e. the number of Rhodes Scholars, Australian Prime Ministers, High Court of Australia judges is an actual number and is actually higher than any other school in Australia. Many school pages like Scotch College, Eton College etc. discuss their alumni in the introduction, so doing it here is not really advertising.

i.e.

• High Court Judges: Sydney Grammar has 7. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Sydneians#High_Court_of_Australia . You can make a list and see all judges and their schools here (7 is more than any other school): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_High_Court_of_Australia .
• Australian Prime Ministers: Sydney Grammar has 3. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Sydneians . The only School to match this is Melbourne Grammar School which also has 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Grammar_School#Prime_Ministers . You can ssee all Australian PMs and their schools from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia , SGS is the hhighest.
• Rhode Scholars: Sydney Grammar has 28. See here: https://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/_literature_161184/05-1_new , where in May 2005, it notes that David Winterton is the 26th Rhode Scholar (page 3). Since then, Eric Knight (2006) http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1490 , and Patrick Bateman and Patrick Bateman (2013) https://crawford.anu.edu.au/study/intern-fellow-programs/us-congressional-research-fellowship-program/our-fellows-2011-12 have won it making 28. Here is an article referring to 'Sydney Grammar dominance' for Rhodes Scholarships: https://www.afr.com/leadership/management/business-education/the-new-rhodes-scholarship-doesnt-require-sport-or-a-private-school-20180515-h103ur . The next highest is Hutchins School at 23 Rhode Scholars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchins_School , which unfairly notes it here without verification so your standards I think should also apply to these pages.

Is the issue that you want these claims to have references/be verified with sources? I provided sources above, see what you think. Also not sure how comments on Staff like 'Gary Audas' can be allowed when that is more opinionated and not verified either. Are you ok if I just delete this 'Staff' section and just add the reference to SGS having the highest number of High Court judges, Aus PM and Rhode Scholars? Thanks. ~gogomannn1 —Preceding undated comment added 01:45 (updated 02:26), 22 August 2018‎

The following reply has been written before the links and additional questions have been added above. It is still valid, but I'll reply a second time to address the new text above.

Hi Gogomannn1! Thank you for asking, and -- yes -- thank you for your contributions.

I think that there are two possible problems with these edits.

• There might be a conflict of interest. If you are affiliated with this school in any way, please take the time to read the following page: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• There seems to be a lack of neutrality. For example, the following text had been added to the article: "numerous knowledgeable staff", which is rather promotional than neutral. About this specific issue, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• There seems to be a lack of verifiability. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• There seems to be a violation of the policy about information about living persons. While it might, perhaps, under some circumstances be acceptable to keep unsourced statements within an article until someone takes the time to add a reference, there can never be such an exception regarding statements about living persons. For example, the following statement had been made: "However, there are a few teachers well reputable for their strictness, one of which is [name]." This might, perhaps, be the most important page to read among all linked here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• There seems to be a need for a short FAQ page that answers open questions. This one here is wonderful: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

If, after having taken the time to read all of this (yes, sadly, this appears to be absolutely necessary), you would still like to edit the article, you may carefully continue. I have no authority to forbid this, I can only warn about possible problems and explain the policies if there are any questions left. Feel free to ask again, whenever you like to. Have a nice day.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

About the references, some of them appear to be Wikipedia articles. Please note that Wikipedia articles are never a valid source for other Wikipedia articles. About the rest, consider carefully if these are reliable (they might well be!), using the following guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance mate! I have read the policies. For the staff, I agree with you on the neutrality and living persons element and more, I think that section should be best deleted. For the alumni, I can assure you I have fastidiously checked this too! The other school pages I think are more riddled with the basic problems as you suggested. Great to hear there are such thorough editors like yourself on Wikipedia! Have a nice day! ~gogomannn1 —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 22 August 2018‎

Tech News: 2018-35

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

Recent changes

• You can now see moved paragraphs in diffs in the mobile view. It also works on all languages in the desktop view. [98]
• Bureaucrats on all Wikimedia wikis can now remove the interface admin user right. [99]

Problems

• Some diffs show lines in the wrong order. The developers are working on fixing it. [100]

Changes later this week

• The message you see when you thank a user will change. This is to make it easier to understand. [101]
• AWB will stop adding using AWB in the edit summary. Instead it will add a tag that says AWB. [102]
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title. [103]
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age. [104]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 August. It will be on all wikis from 30 August (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 28 August 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 29 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour. You can read more about this.

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

16:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

TN eCampus External Link

Hi,

I received your message regarding our eternal link on Motlow community college. This is a useful resource for Motlow students and applicants. Would you prefer we list it in another location on the page? Tnecampus.org is the TN Board of regents site covering all online education programs by TBR institutions. Each institution has it's own page with easy access to online programs, accreditation, enrollment, etc. https://tnecampus.org/institutions/97/overview?institution=Motlow%20State%20Community%20College

Thanks,

Chris TBR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.85.60.222 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 96.85.60.222, thank you very much for the explanation. I will write a more detailled answer later, when the discussion has finished. Please have a look at the following two pages in the meantime:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#tnecampus.org

Please also consider creating an account, because your IP address might change and I might else end up talking to a wall.

Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Liferay Article

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

Hey Yotaml2, thanks for getting in touch, and thanks for creating an account.

The best way to get these changes implemented by experienced Wikipedia editors is probably requesting them on the article's talk page, Talk:Liferay, and suggesting a new version of the article as a "userspace draft". This is very easy to do, because the following page will automatically create it for you: Help:Userspace draft -- just enter "Liferay" in that box and click on the button next to it, which will become blue and clickable as soon as you have entered something in the box.

Thank you, also, for disclosing your affiliation. This is especially important when actually submitting that draft for review, so that others can understand why you would like these edits to be made. I would also suggest adding a short notice on your user page, by creating ---> this page <--- with the following content: {{paid|user=Yotaml2|employer=Liferay}} -- the result will look like this:

A very useful page that I would highly recommend reading is: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

In a nutshell, your suggestions are very welcome; while the policy guideline discourages you from directly editing the article, it does invite you to use the process I have described above. I think that this way, we can find a solution that is satisfactory for all the parties involved.
^{Corection 02:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC): "policy" --> "guideline" ~ ToBeFree}

I am copying this to the article's talk page, Talk:Liferay, to help other readers to understand the situation. If there are any questions left, feel free to message me directly here, or to ask for help at the Teahouse, at any time. I hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

ToBeFree, I have made the requested changes to Talk:Liferay and updated my user page. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you recommend that I do anything else. Yotaml2 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, nice to meet you again. Thank you very much - that looks good. I'm currently trying to figure out how to find a Wikipedia editor experienced with business portal software to ask them to have a closer look at your requested change. I tried to research a bit into the Liferay Digital Experience Platform to create a more encyclopedic, less promotional description of DXP, but I have noticed that this task would exceed my knowledge about this kind of software by far. I have, after some searching, noticed that the article already links to the Enterprise portal article. This is very good; more links like that one could be helpful especially for non-tech-savvy readers, and for tech-savvy readers who never have heard the term "Enterprise portal" before. I think it might be a nice idea to add similar links (so-called "wikilinks" or "internal links") to your suggested edit.

Ideally, some currently unnecessarily promotional portions of the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic writing style. Company and product names are less important; describing what these things do is probably more useful. The following sentence from the current version of the article might show what I mean:

In April 2013, Liferay partnered with TIBCO Software to offer a series of Liferay enterprise Connectivity Adapters (eC Adapters) that use TIBCO ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks with the intention of easing integration of Liferay Portal with multiple systems.

Hm. What is a "Liferay enterprise Connectivity Adapter", what is "TIBCO ActiveMatrix BusinessWorks"; could this be rewritten using general technical terms instead of brand names? I lack the knowledge to explain that sentence to the reader -- and that might be exactly the problem.

Here's an example I just made up in my head, taken partly from this Samsung store listing and modified by me to look even more promotional:

In 2018, Samsung released a top-quality, best-selling enterprise 970 series NVMeᵀᴹ SSD powered by the latest V-NAND technology, and equipped to deliver exceptional performance.

This should be rewritten to something like:

In 2018, the company released a new type of Solid State Drive, using vertical NAND technology. The internal flash memory cells of the drive are stacked vertically to achieve higher storage capacity.

My example is probably not perfect, but I hope that it explains the general direction of moving from "promotional" to "encyclopedic".

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

ToBeFree Thank you. Would it be OK for me to add my suggested edit to the Liferay article until a more technical editor has a chance to review? Yotaml2 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, I personally would suggest avoiding it because of Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" (COI) guideline:

COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.

This especially, most strongly, applies to paid editors. The guideline already, generally, says the following about conflicts of interest:

you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly

It has an even stronger wording about paid editing:

you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly

Also, three things that come to my mind:

• There is no hurry.
• You said in your initial message that it would be great if the Liferay entry at least included mention of our product offerings, and that [t]his is particularly important since we just launched several new ones. What is the real reason to mention specific brand names in the article, you might need to ask yourself - and if the honest answer is "promotion", please see Wikipedia:PROMO, a part of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy.
• An edit that only extends the article by one additional product information might be ignoring larger, more fundamental problems, like the usage of brand names instead of general terms, and the lack of explanation of these terms. There is a difference between company websites, which can contain any advertisement text the company likes, and a free encyclopedia that should only contain neutral content of encyclopedic value. If there was an article about Liferay in the Encyclopedia Americana, would it contain these sentences? And if not, why not?*
  ^{*(this is not a general rule, as also described on the long policy page above, but it might help to understand a potential problem in the Liferay article)}

The article can definitely be improved; in my opinion, it should be. As described in my previous message, I lack the deep know-how to do this for the Liferay article. Other editors' approaches to promotional sentences might be even more rigorous: If I added the suggested change 1:1 to the article, there is no guarantee that it wouldn't cause the whole list to be removed for lack of encyclopedic value, until a suitable replacement is found. Because, and that's again important to keep in mind, there is no hurry. There is no deadline. If the article is completely rewritten and the process takes five years, that's perfectly okay. Pushing paid, promotional, unencyclopedic changes is unlikely to succeed.

Possible next steps, if you have the time to do this (hey, if you get money for doing it, take the chance! Win-win!)

• Copying the complete article text into the sandbox, which currently only contains a single paragraph. I hoped that the "userspace draft" creation tool would have automatically done that; if there are problems doing it manually, feel free to ask me for assistance with this step. I'll happily help!
• Adding the suggested new sentence to the sandbox
• Modifying the preceding sentence, which I had been taking as a "bad example" in my previous message, to be more encyclopedic: Explaining what is happening instead of mentioning as many brands as possible for SEO.
  ^{(that's an essay linked behind the word SEO, not an established policy or guideline. I've linked it because it has some good points, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.)}
• Improving the whole article in the same fashion, after having noticed the huge difference in the example sentence
• Letting someone without experience in your business, but with basic IT knowledge, read the article, after having explained the potential issue and the reason for the changes to them. Ask them for an honest opinion if they actually think that it is an improvement to the encyclopedia, and if it improves understandability of the article to them personally. Comprehension questions by the reader could be very useful new input for more detailled explanations.
• Finally, submitting the draft for approval. This is a bit tricky because the article "already exists". When you're at this point, please send me a message on my talk page again. Alternatively, feel free to add {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to your draft, to ask an experienced Wikipedia user to have a closer look and possibly implement the changes. If you do this manually, please explicitly state "This is meant to be an improvement to the existing [[Liferay]] article, after a discussion I had at the following page: [[User_talk:ToBeFree#Liferay_Article]], on 2018-07-19. If this link does not work anymore, please search for 'Liferay' in ToBeFree's talk page archive, around 2018-07-19. This should explain the reason for the changes." on the draft page.

I hope this helps! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, OK, I have not made any edits to the Liferay article itself. However, I revised the article in sandbox so that the full article is present. I also slightly modified the previous sentence "In May 2016..." to be more encyclopedic. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know if I did this correctly, but I'm trying my best to follow guidelines. The revised version is here: User:Yotaml2/sandbox/Liferay. As for your point regarding urgency, I do feel that there's an argument to be made that the article should be as up-to-date as possible. For example, it would probably be an issue if the Wikipedia article for Donald Trump only mentioned his real estate career in the 1980s and didn't make note of the fact that he is now the President of the United States. Yotaml2 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, thank you for taking the time to do this. I have now actually made changes to the article based on your sandbox draft. See here for more information: Talk:Liferay#Request_for_edits_to_Liferay_Wikipedia_page

Popular articles, like Donald Trump, attract an enormous amount of readers all over the world. It is almost guaranteed that they'll update the article within a few minutes whenever something interesting is in the news about him. For this reason, you are definitely correct, it would be very strange if that article wasn't up to date. There is no rule that would force anyone to update it, though. That's the voluntary nature of Wikipedia, and -- to be honest -- one of the main reasons why articles about very specialized topics that only few people understand rarely get updated and often lack information. Sometimes, this causes companies to attempt fixing the issue themselves, but many of them don't do it as professional and patient as you fortunately do. This causes some Wikipedia volunteers to be a bit allergic against any "conflict of interest editing" or "paid editing", whenever they see it. I would like to thank you again for the exemplary manner of dealing with this possible conflict of interest. If everyone did it like that, Wikipedia would not have many of its current problems. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, thank you again for all of your help. If I may ask you for one more favor, would it be possible to edit the following sentence in the Liferay article: "In May 2016, Liferay introduced an expansion of the original Liferay Portal to offer additional functionality such as engagement metrics." to read as follows: "In May 2016, Liferay introduced Liferay Digital Experience Platform, an expansion of the original Liferay Portal to offer additional functionality such as engagement metrics." I feel that the sentence as-is may be a little unclear to readers.Yotaml2 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, no problem

About the edit, I am unsure: I had copied your suggested sentence from the sandbox and reworded it to the current article version in the process. To make this clearer for all other editors, I should have done this in two steps instead of one. It doesn't clearly appear to be, maybe, but this is not really requesting a new change, but instead requesting undoing one. This might not appear to be a large difference, and it often actually isn't, but when it comes to undoing other users' edits, there are a few additional things to be considered:

• There was a user who made the edit, manually, in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. This is always our first assumption on Wikipedia, even if the edit is not conforming to policies or even adding blatant nonsense.
• Undoing an edit is potentially more problematic than making other types of edits. If the edit is not violating policies or guidelines, but rather just "not an improvement" or "not the way one would like the article to be", undoing requires careful consideration to avoid starting a so-called edit war.
• If you have created the previous version of the article, undoing changes someone else made to it has even more potential to be a bad idea. Some of the potential problems with doing this are described in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy.

Again, I am unsure in this case here. If, after considering these three points, you honestly, and not just because it would be better promotion, believe that your suggested edit improves the article, you can consider one of these options:

• Making the edit directly. Again, this has all the potential problems described above; the edit-warring policy always needs to be kept in mind. In this specifc case, the "conflict of interest" / "paid editing" guideline (WP:PAID) very strongly recommends against taking this option, and it's not actually really being considered here -- I just chose to add this point for the sake of completeness.
• Suggesting the edit on the article's talk page -- just as you have already successfully done before. In this specific case, the small change doesn't require a sandbox for demonstration, but can be requested exactly as you have already done on my talk page. The wording of the request already appears to be perfect to me, but it might be too short yet. I personally would wish to see a specific explanation why the edit is encyclopedic and not promotional, as it only consists of adding a brand name to the article. If improving clarity is the reason, it could be very useful to explain why this would make the sentence clearer (easier to understand?) to readers.

If you choose to suggest the edit on the article's talk page, I personally won't answer to the request on the article's talk page for at least one week, and potentially longer, maybe even a month or more. This is not because I'd choose to ignore you; this is absolutely not because of disagreement itself, and this is definitely not because I'd believe that I'd be the only person who can make the change and could avoid the change that way. I'm not doing this to avoid a discussion; I have contributed to the discussion by writing this answer, and the preceding paragraph contains an indirect explanation of my edit. I will also always respond as soon as I can on my talk page. Not answering on the article's talk page is rather for two other reasons: I want to avoid that anyone thinks "oh, this is already being taken care of, I'll move on", and I still believe that there is no urgency for adding a brand name to the article, so it can't hurt if it takes a month to be eventually added to the article. Any urgency in this specific matter might just be of promotional nature.

If nobody responds before I choose to respond, I will still not deny the request either. I will, instead, respond with a short summary of the edits and the situation so far, and then request a third opinion on the matter here: Wikipedia:Third opinion I would do this to avoid answering with "Okay, I disagree, for the same reasons as I have already said", because that would not be useful for the discussion. When a discussion reaches that point, a third opinion can be enormously helpful to both participants of the discussion. That's what the "third opinion" page is for.

I hope this helps, and I wish you a nice day.

PS: If you like to, you can easily refer to this discussion anywhere you like, using the following link: [[User_talk:ToBeFree#Liferay_Article]] -- doing it exactly like this will ensure that the link still works even if this discussion is moved to my talk page archive one day. The bot that archives discussions on my talk page will find that link and update it to point to the new location. I also prevent this specific discussion from being archived until the edit request is implemented or denied by another editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for the advice. I have suggested an edit on Talk:Liferay. Is this what you had in mind? Yotaml2 (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2! That looks very good. I also wasn't aware that this replaces Liferay Portal; I thought that it is one of the (potentially many) extensions you'd be offering additionally to the base package. If it actually replaces the original software, mentioning the new name might be a very reasonable request. Have a nice day and feel free to ask again if any questions come up before I have a closer look at this again ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, Thank you. Yes, Liferay Digital Experience Platform replaced Liferay Portal. If you look under the "product" section here: https://www.liferay.com/, you will see that Liferay Portal is not listed (it was replaced in 2016). Yotaml2 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for the clarification! That might change the importance of the extension name drastically. I'll check again in about 1 month I think. Maybe I'll even make the requested edit myself. Should my implementation not be what you had in mind, we can then of course still have a look at the third opinion page. I'll happily request a third opinion whenever you like to, if you should ever feel that this discussion is going in circles. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done: The {{Request edit}} template was very useful here, and I didn't think about it in the first place. On 19 August 2018, I have added it to the request. The requested edit has been improved/implemented by Spintendo and C.Fred on 22 August 2018 / 27 August 2018. See Talk:Liferay#Request 2, 31 July 2018 (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Message by 167.98.65.66

Hey, I'm good friends with the son and it is painful having to go all the way to Iraq to see him. In fact, he is visiting London right now and is next to me, and confirms the information. change it back (infinity war was a prank lmao) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.65.66 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hey 167.98.65.66

Is this about your edit to the Frances O'Connor article? (Diff)

This is a biography about a living person. Imagine such an article existed about you, and it contained wrong statements. You have added:

"had a son [...] who was unfortunately deported to Iraq"

If you can actually provide a reliable source for this, it could be added back to the article... without the "prank" part.

PS: There are quite a few warnings on your talk page. If you are using a shared IP address and these warnings have not been intended for you, please point that out -- otherwise, the IP might be blocked for disruption thought to be from one person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally know Luka Lepkowski and am very good friends with him. It is very annoying to have to go to Iraq every time. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.65.66 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hello again,

Yes my changes were made to the Frances O'Connor article. Also this is in fact a shared IP address, and that is the only change I personally have made.

I do not know how I can provide a reliable source for this as there is no article or anything about it. I am with Luka Lepkowski right now but I am not sure how I could prove my statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.65.66 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hi, you're with the son right now? Please have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects then. Unfortunately, we need a reliable, preferably secondary, source for the edit; it can not "simply be added" by anyone. There is also detailled information about this issue available here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources

If, after reading at least the Article Subject FAQ, there are any questions left for you or him, feel free to ask again at any time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:Kirinia epaminondas

I agree with your removal of the "reference" for the promotional reasons. However, the information it cites is in the given source: the heading of that ref's species-page reads "Kirinia epaminondas (Staudinger, 1887)", which is standard zoological notation for the taxon authority. Doesn't matter a lot for this specific case because those links *should* be removed, but figured I'd let you know in case you ever run into similar issues with references that don't have such a clear-cut reason for removal also applying. AddWittyNameHere 00:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey AddWittyNameHere

That's a very good point. My edit summary for this type of edits contained the statement "Removing unsourced exact number." -- I am changing this to "Removing unreliably sourced exact number." because this is what I meant instead. Would that be an appropriate statement? About the specific edit, if there's more than that, I'd need a diff link to see which one exactly this is about. Thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, of course it's in the heading of your message already. :) That one was using my old message, while I was still improving it: Diff -- newer edits should already have a more precise summary, and your message made me improve it further. If you'd like to suggest any other changes, I'm very open for that and now would be the time to do it^^ Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, good to know it's an old one. Happened to catch it on my watchlist is all. Ah yes, I know about tweaking summaries repeatedly for highly repetitive mass-undertakings.

Your current summary appears to be mostly ok, but I'd consider adding a permalink of the WP:ELN discussion so that, once it gets archived, people can still easily find the exact discussion. (Using ([[Special:PermanentLink/853176615#Mass addition of lepidoptera.eu links by website owner|permalink]]), rendering as (permalink), should work and from a quick look *should* fit within the edit summary character limits even added to your current summary)

Lepidoptera articles tend to be edited at a glacial pace (which makes sense when you've got over 100,000 articles and not even a dozen active editors in a subject area, but is no less frustrating for it) and most of us fairly quickly get rid of the habit of watchlisting everything we've edited lest we end up watching a five-digit number of pages. As such, many if not most of the eyeballs your edit summaries will get (once they drop off recent changes, anyway) are likely to be months if not years in the future. AddWittyNameHere 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes! How could I not think about archival issues. I didn't know Special:PermanentLink yet; I would probably have tried to achieve this with Special:Diff somehow. Thanks, especially for already creating the link syntax! I'll copy that to my (currently three) temporary summary text files. That definitely fits inside the character limit. Good thing you noticed early! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it's an easy thing to forget and if people really want to figure it out they can always hunt the relevant thread down in the archives (I know I've done so frequently enough when I really want to know what was in them) but it's a lot easier and less confusing when a permalink is already in place.

Yeah, diff/permalink rendering in edit summaries is a little bit tricky sometimes because neither full url-type links nor templates work in edit summaries and those two def. are the major two ways of handling diffs that people are likely to be used to. Thankfully, Wikipedia has lots of nifty tricks like that. Problem is, Wikipedia has looooots of nifty tricks like that, meaning it's practically impossible to remember most of them, just the ones you've worked with a lot or recently looked up. XD

You're already dealing with the large task of removing all those links (and thank you for that! :D) the least I could do was save you the additional work puzzling out "how exactly am I gonna do this?" by preformatting it for ya.

Glad to hear it indeed fits into the edit summary well. A nice trick to keep in mind for when things *don't* fit (like when you need a lot of piped wikilinks in there to link to everything relevant, or similar situations) is that it's always an option to just create a page in your userspace with all the relevant info and links and merely link to that one in your summaries. Helps cut down on the number of links needed (and thus character count). Same if you're doing a large run of same type of edits that are uncontroversial but still require an explanation that wouldn't fit into an edit summary without abbreviating so much that it becomes basically unreadable. AddWittyNameHere 05:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity

Hey there. Sorry for this, but it seems that I have a shared IP address. Someone else made the edit to the Connect Four page, for I haven't seen the Connect Four page at all. I hope that you understand that this is just a misunderstanding and I hope you have a wonderful day! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.204.42.181 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hi 174.204.42.181, thank you very much for the clarification! This happens often, especially with mobile connections. I have now added a "mobile IP" information box at the top of your talk page, so that other visitors can easily understand the situation.

You might be interested what has been done using this IP address.

• The list of contributions: Special:Contributions/174.204.42.181
• The specific edit made to the Connect Four article: Diff link

Thank you, have a wonderful day too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Message by Blatay

(this is probably about these two edits to Bowser (character): 1, 2) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you for helping me undo a mistake, I couldn't quite figure out how to undo it myself until just now. I need help though, im trying to replace an image on the page because the one that the page currently features is quite out of date. Where in the code is the image file where I can swamp it for another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blatay (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blatay, thank you for your contributions and the message.

I hope that I was able to interpret the edit correctly -- did you mean to do the following?

Special:Diff/854929363

Please note that image changes are often controversial, and there should always be a good reason when doing so. "Out of date" does seem to be a good reason to me. If someone disagrees with the image change, please take a moment to explain it on the article's talk page, Talk:Bowser (character). Let's see what happens in the next days... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the image used was outdated and used the character's old design, so I updated it for the character's current design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blatay (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blatay: Sounds good -- I have copied your explanation to the article's talk page, so that others can see the reason too:

Talk:Bowser_(character)#Image_updated

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blatay: ...aaaand the image is gone. But not because it wasn't suitable for the article, but rather because it was a "copyright violation". The image has been uploaded with a wrong license; it needs to be uploaded on the English Wikipedia via Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, as a "fair use" work. Do not mark it as "own work"; do not use a Creative Commons license. Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images about the difference, and why this is important. I should have noticed this before, but I wrongly assumed that it had been correctly uploaded as "fair use" work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 4.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the article Dorothy Head Knode ‎ that I could add to the DOY page and was able to add it to the DOY page.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1!

This is interesting, thank you for the information. I was actually not aware of this. I did have a look at the linked articles, though, and have added a source for the death date to the linked article before accepting the "(d. 2018)" addition. I have even linked to WP:BLP in my edit summary. I must have overlooked that Dorothy Head Knode's birth date was not yet referenced as well.

I personally would prefer to have inline citations on all main namespace pages including disambiguation pages, but this is explicitly unwanted per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References. Because references are an extremely rare occurence on "Days of the Year" pages, I assumed this to be a similar case. The specific edit you're referring to is a good example: Someone has just added a list entry exactly like the other list entries, and suddenly the new edit is exclusively treated as an unsourced change that should not be reviewed without modification. This feels counter-intuitive.

I guess it would even be justifiable to add {{More citations needed}} to all these pages, but I won't do it per WP:POINT.

Something is very strange about the current situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: I just saw a series of edits in the log that confirms the counter-intuitivity of the situation, and a possible effect on surprised editors: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3. This is really not good, especially when the answer is "read the rules". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, change is tough. Especially after operating in such a screwed up state for so long - those DOY pages are loaded with errors. And what's worse is there are news agencies that have used them for "on this day" features which are now being used to support the errors. Toddst1 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Oh my god -- I agree that this change was long overdue. I'll do my best to improve the situation. Maybe I'll even take the time to add references to a whole day or two. Doing it for all of them might be a bot task... but a bot can't verify the reliability of the sources. Sigh...

Would it maybe actually be an idea to create a template dedicated to explaining this problem, based loosely on {{More citations needed}}, but modified to explain the new guideline? I won't boldly do it alone because it might appear to be disruptive, but it might be a general suggestion for the WikiProject. If the project reaches consensus that such a notice is useful, I will happily help creating and/or adding it where needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

PS: How about an "add all missing references to your birthday" event, or a similar call for action? If enough people join, the amount work of each editor is relatively low. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now created two new sections on the project's talk page:

• "More citations needed" template?
• "Add references to your birthday" event

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

NOT A PAID EDITOR IN ANY WAY

Thank you for your comments. I am strictly a volunteer member of non-profit organizations (university, government, etc.) with an interest in various artists.Attawaysmith (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attawaysmith, thank you for the clarification. May I ask two more questions?

• Are you perhaps affiliated with Cecilrrose, or coordinating your Wikipedia edits with them by discussing outside Wikipedia? Please see WP:Meatpuppetry for details about possible issues with this. In a nutshell, if this is actually the case, please clarify this on both userpages, and make clear that you are aware of that page and are adhering to the WP:SOCK policy.
• Is there any affiliation between the article subject(s) and you / your organization? Please note that even non-profit organizations and volunteers can have a conflict of interest.

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful comments

User Cecilrrose is an art historian and subject matter expert on article(s) which I have written. Cecilrrose had never previously contributed to Wikipedia, but joined because of their in depth knowledge. Our collegial exchanges are in no way intended to violate WP:Meatpuppetry or WP:SOCK, but rather an effort to clean-up the writing. Our user pages will reflect that.

Article subject(s) have no affiliation other than that their art works are included in the collections of public institutions where cecilrrose and I have served as volunteer board members. As a new Wikipedian, I hope to be able to contribute to articles about other artists with whose work I am familiar.

Again, thank you for helping me to navigate Wikipedia.Attawaysmith (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attawaysmith, thank you very much! This sounds good! I have now added a message to each talk page, explaining the situation, and providing three example clarifications that I personally would recommend adding to your user page. For the record, I will copy the two messages here as well:

Sent to Cecilrrose, who has sadly not responded during editing -- it might be helpful to inform them about their talk page. Normally, they should have received automatic notifications about the messages, just like you probably did.

Note about above warnings

Hi Attawaysmith has taken the time to explain the situation on my talk page. Before continuing to edit, please add a notice to your user page, or at least below this message on your talk page, containing the following information:

• I do not receive, and do not expect to receive, any compensation for my edits, per WP:PAID.
• I am aware of the WP:SOCK policy, especially the part about "meatpuppetry". Attawaysmith is a different person, but might share the same IP address. We are, with the policy in mind, sometimes editing the same article together to clean-up the writing.
• I am not affiliated with the article subjects in any way; I do not have a conflict of interest per WP:COI.

After that, feel free to remove all my warnings from your talk page, consider them "done, solved" and have a nice day. If there are any questions left, you are always welcome to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sent to you:

Note about above messages

Hi Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the situation on my talk page. Before continuing to edit, please add a notice to your user page, or at least below this message on your talk page, containing the following information:

• I do not receive, and do not expect to receive, any compensation for my edits, per WP:PAID.
• I am aware of the WP:SOCK policy, especially the part about "meatpuppetry". Cecilrrose is a different person, but might share the same IP address. We are, with the policy in mind, sometimes editing the same article together to clean-up the writing.
• I am not affiliated with the article subjects in any way; I do not have a conflict of interest per WP:COI.

After that, feel free to remove any or all of my messages from your talk page, consider them "done, solved" and have a nice day. If there are any questions left, you are always welcome to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please always keep in mind to write from a neutral point of view, adding verifiable statements only, especially when editing biographies of living persons.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and response to your questions

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my role in editing on wikipedia. In response to your specific questions: 1) I receive no compensation for my edits 2)I am aware of the WP.SOCK policy an the meat puppetry guidelines. Attawaysmith and I are indeed different people 3)I have no conflict of interest regarding the subject of the of the article I have edited Cecilrrose (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cecilrrose, thank you very much! I have copied the above message to your user page; feel free to modify it in any way you like to. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Royal Guard edit

Sorry, forgot to add the source here: http://www.guardiareal.org/Menu/Historia/resena/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.181.161 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey 218.102.181.161, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

About My Editing

Excuse me,

I just wanna add some information to that page, and also i want to add the web as my reference. Can i edit the reference so i can put the website link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo PD (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You can add the reference. See WP:CS. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No, wait, please don't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Edo PD, thank you for the explanation.

You had made the following two edits to the article Periorbital puffiness: Diff 1, Diff 2

There might be multiple problems with these edits.

• The website does not appear to be a reliable source, but rather a quickly setup blog that, as of this writing, does not even seem to have a working "About" page or an imprint. If you are affiliated with this website in any way, please be very careful before adding any more links to that website. Repeated addition of this link may cause it to be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. You seem to be the first editor on the English Wikipedia who has ever added a link to that website.
• There might be a conflict of interest. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and decide carefully if it might apply to you. If it does, please follow the advice there.
• Wikipedia is not a guidebook or a manual. Directly addressing the reader with "you" should be avoided; see also: MOS:YOU.

Keeping all these possible issues in mind, I would not recommend adding a link to that website again, not even in a reference tag.

While writing, I see that you might have already followed the friendly advice above my reply: Diff 3

In addition to all the points above, there is another possible issue with this specific edit: It has been marked as a "minor edit", but it does not really seem to be a minor edit. Please see Help:Minor edits for more information.

I hope this helps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Hello! I've been (very) slowly transfering images from enWP to Commons. I stumbled across File:David Andelman 6-9-2012.jpg, which you and @ShakespeareFan00: recommend transferring to Commons. The uploader claims to have taken the image, but also notes that it was published here at the subject's website. That website makes no claim to copyright. However I get the feeling that if I transfer it to Commons as is, I'll be asked for OTRS verification that the uploader (who hasn't edited for years) was the copyright holder. Am I missing anything here? I'm happy to ping the subject to request OTRS verification that the image is released under a compatible license if y'all think that's best. I just didn't want to jump ahead and create a mess for others to clean up. Any guidance is much appreciated. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ajpolino!

Very cool. I was always hoping that one day someone would find my file category useful. I've been using the "For the Common Good" tool as well, and have created the category as a rough pre-sorting that contains only media with specific licenses. These images have not been manually "recommended" for transfer by me. However, if I remember correctly, they have all also been tagged by ShakespeareFan00, which might have been a more manual action. During the transferring process, I noticed that all images that have previously been published on Facebook are unlikely to be accepted on Commons, so I removed them from my category again. You may freely do the same thing for any other criteria that you notice while transferring images. Feel free to remove any images you like from the category, and feel free to add new ones. It has "ToBeFree" in its name, but that doesn't matter. I should maybe have chosen a different name in the first place. To mass-remove images from the category, I have been using the "Cat-a-lot" tool, which is available as javascript on the English Wikipedia too.

From my experience (which made me stop transferring for now, frustratedly!):

• If you feel that something might be rejected on Commons, it likely will be.
• If you feel that something might be acceptable on Commons, it might actually not be.
• If the image description templates break on Commons, people might tag the image for deletion instead of fixing the error.
• If a copyright violation is found by a patroller, you're lucky if the patroller understands what is going on and notifies the original uploader.
• Patrollers on Wikimedia Commons may not always assume good faith. If someone explicitly wrote in an image description "Photo made by me at XY event", and the Exif data contains a copyright notice that is not clearly matching the uploader's name, the file may be tagged for deletion instead of assuming that the uploader is the copyright holder. Pointing this out may cause you to be called "naive" on Commons. On the other hand, I believe that nominating the same file for deletion on enWP will cause the nomination to be declined for not assuming good faith. In some cases, whatever you choose to do, it may be wrong.

This all appears strange to me because Commons has many experienced users who appear to be waiting to fix any errors with these images, while most Wikipedia users do not seem to care much about files and won't notice these errors in the next 20 years.

You can find the warnings I've received and the discussions that emerged here: commons:User_talk:ToBeFree/Archive_1

About your specific question: Yes, I think you are correct. Per commons:Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, OTRS needs to be contacted if:

I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter.

This seems to be the case here. There is an exception for "grandfathered old files" which definitely does not apply to an image uploaded in 2015.

I might one day consider transferring images to Commons again, very slowly, and hopefully not making any mistakes again. 195,312 images are still in the backlog. Good luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-36

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

• There is a new user right for users who can edit CSS and JavaScript for the entire wiki. Before this all admins could edit CSS and JavaScript. This was a security risk. This group is called interface administrators. Administrators can delete user CSS and JavaScript pages. [105][106]
• There will be an A/B test on the Wikipedia mobile website. It starts this week. It tests how we show templates that show information about an article. The test will last two weeks. [107][108]
• You can now use different CSS rules for different skins when you edit templates. This is because of TemplateStyles. [109]
• wp10 in ORES is now called articlequality. [110]
• When you get a new message on your talk page you get a yellow message in the toolbar. The preference to show or not show this has been removed. [111]

Problems

• UploadWizard had problems with campaigns. Users could not upload files. This has now been fixed. [112]
• You can get a notification when a link is made to a page you created. This has not worked since June. It was fixed last week. [113]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 September. It will be on all wikis from 6 September (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 5 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Readers department will work on advanced mobile editing. You can read more about this and other things they plan to work on over the next year. You can also see the presentation.
• The RelatedSites extension will be removed from Wikivoyage.
• Unused projects on the Wikimedia Cloud virtual private server will be removed. This will happen in October. Projects can be marked if they are being used. [114]

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

16:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks so much for your advice about the edits. It's my first time editing on Wikipedia and I'm still trying to figure things out. I tried to save the edits I wanted to upload, but not sure how to invite someone else to proof my edits? As such, I think they've all been reverted back to the original copy now. Also, how do I choose who best to approach for a proofread?

Really appreciate your advice and I'll do my best to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks! Emckenzie852 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Emckenzie852, nice to meet you – you're welcome. And welcome to Wikipedia!

Don't worry: Whenever something is strange or unclear, there will always be people online who are happy to help. On the English Wikipedia, pretty much 24/7; you can find them at the Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Also, your edits are not gone; they will always be accessible via the "history" of the article. Here is an exact "diff" of the changes: Special:Diff/858766541/858874647

Here is the "diff" of my reversions: Special:Diff/858874647/858874960

There may be a few problems with the specific edits:

• Possibly unnecessary detail? Is it really important to list all founders with their business titles? The sentence might have become unnecessarily long; I personally would recommend adding this to the infobox instead, if needed.
• Apparently unsourced change of sourced information: Without adding a new source, the edit changed a number from "200" to "300". The unchanged source still says "over 200". Adding a reference used to be a relatively complex task, but I see that you have been using the new "visual editor". This is awesome, because it allows you to add a reference easily. Just click the "Cite" button where you would like to add a reference. For this specific detail, a permanently reachable, official information page (not a blog post) on the company website may be a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more details.
• External links: In my eyes, this has been the main problem. If there is an article about a topic, feel free to link to the Wikipedia article. If none exists, and if the topic is notable, feel free to create one, and then link to it. External links to company websites should normally not be added to the body of an article (see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam)
• Possibly undisclosed paid editing? You have already acknowledged the "conflict of interest" policy (diff), and I thank you for that, but I remain unsure, and explicit clarification would be nice: Per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, did you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia? For example, if you are working as a PR manager or in a similar position for the company, then yes, you would be receiving compensation for improving the public view of your company, and the Wikipedia edits would be covered by that definition. If you are actually not receiving any kind of compensation for your edits, please clarify this to avoid confusion. Please note that paid editing is not forbidden – it just must be made clear.
• Possible conflict of interest? Even if there is no "paid editing", I suspect that there is likely a conflict of interest here. Again, this is not necessarily a problem and not forbidden – it should just be made clear.

If you do possibly have a conflict of interest, but after reading this, you would still like to request changes to the Wikipedia article, for example to replace outdated information, or to add encyclopedic content to the article, feel free to do the following:

• Consider honestly whether you are requesting the edit to improve the encyclopedia, or to improve your Google results. In the latter case, abort.
• Open the following link in a new tab: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canva&action=edit&section=new
• Add a subject to the message, for example "Requested edit by Emckenzie852"
• In the message body, write this first: {{request edit}}. Then start a new paragraph, by adding two newlines (press "Return" twice, for example).
• Describe exactly what you would like to change, for example "I would like to replace X by Y" or "After the sentence 'lorem ipsum', I would like to add the following sentence: 'dolor sit amet'".
• At the end, add the "~~~~" (signature) and press "Preview edit".
• If the result looks good, press "Publish changes". Done. Now all you need to do is to wait, maybe for a week or so. Other editors may ask questions or suggest changes to your proposal; if this happens, it is usually a good idea to edit the talk page and add an answer to their questions. I recommend not to change the original proposal. If you would like to change something after a few days, remove the {{request edit}} text, and write: "I withdraw this proposal. An improved one will follow below. ~~~~" Then, simply repeat the steps above.

To increase the chances of the edit being actually implemented, I strongly recommend explaining the following things in your request:

• Your affiliation to the article subject, explained in a way that makes other editors understand that it is honestly unlikely to be a problem.
• That you have read the following policies, are aware of them, and that you are confident that the edit is not conflicting with them: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:PAID
• That you have read the following guideline, and are carefully following it by using the "request edit" template instead of making the change directly: WP:COI
• Why the edit is an improvement of the encyclopedia.
• Why the edit is not of promotional nature.

That's it: The edit is very likely to be implemented, if the above statements are true. I would be very surprised if anyone denies the edit in this case. Maybe I'll even implement the edit myself. Feel free to keep me updated, I'll always be happy to help. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: Emckenzie852: To enable the "cite" button on the article's talk page, so that you can easily request an edit that contains such a citation, you need to enable the "New wikitext mode" beta feature on the following page: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-37

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

• When you added or edited a template with the visual editor the input boxes were very big. This has been fixed. The input boxes will now be smaller until you click on them. Then they will change size to fit the text. [115]

Problems

• Some diffs showed lines in the wrong order. This was fixed last week. [116]
• Marking a cross-wiki notification as read didn't work every time. The other wiki was not updated. This has now been fixed. [117]
• <maplink> did not work for a few days. This was because of a bug. This has now been fixed. [118]
• {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} is used by some templates. For a period edits saved with {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} would save the previous user's name and not your username. This is now fixed. Edits made before the bug was fixed will still be wrong and need to be corrected. [119]
• When you move a page the title still shows the old page name. The developers are working on fixing this. [120]

Changes later this week

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour. You can read more about this.
• Because of the data centre test there will be no new version of MediaWiki this week. Changes for this week will come next week instead.

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 11 Septmber 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 12 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The developers work on making the wikis work better on mobile phones. There is a list of common problems when making content easier to read in the mobile view. You can add things to the page and ask others to help.

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

22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Óláfs%20saga%20Tryggvasonar&diff=859378561

The content is a summary of the main article , which is linked directly above - that is Óláfs_saga_Tryggvasonar_en_mesta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.10.236 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey 5.198.10.236, thank you very much for your message, and I'm sorry for having completely reversed all of the edits.

I see that you have added a lot more content than just this to the page, and that you have indeed provided sources. About the specific edit, please note that Wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other Wikipedia articles. If the other article contains a good source, feel free to attribute it in your edits as well.

About my reversion, I should not have reverted all the edits in the first place, but instead could maybe have done a single-version undo. To verify that I have noticed my error and restored your version quickly, you can check that I have already undone my edit before you had sent your message: Special:Diff/859378895/prev (17:35). I have restored your last version, not the one before, to avoid any further confusion.

I have also replaced my warning on your talk page by a "belated welcome" message, which I hope will be much more useful than my initial message. I wish you a nice day, and thank you again for your contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-38

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. Images uploaded using Nearby are now automatically added to the associated Wikidata item. You can browse other images on Commons. You can see your achievements and your upload statistics. It has also fixed some bugs. [121]
• MediaWiki web requests now have a time limit of 60 seconds for GET requests and 200 seconds for POST requests. [122]

Problems

• You could not see the menu on the notifications page on the mobile version. This has now been fixed. [123]

Changes later this week

• Special:AncientPages can hide disambiguation pages. [124]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 September. It will be on all wikis from 20 September (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The developers are testing new mobile web navigation. You can use it and give feedback.

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

21:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-39

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

• The preferences form will change to use the standard look. If you see any problems please report them on Phabricator. [125]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 September. It will be on all wikis from 27 September (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 26 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Armenian Cuisine

Hello,

The first sentence under the meats section says the most popular meat in Armenian cuisine is "pork [5][20]". I am Armenian and we do not eat pork. Unfortunately, I do not have a source but if you look at any Authentic Armenian cookbook written by an Armenian you will notice that none of the meat recipes have pork in them. The most popular meat is lamb and certainly NOT pork. If you notice the two sources mentioned are NOT Armenian, one is Turkish and the other is an Encyclopedia of food. Well, Turks do eat pork because they are Asian. They came from central Asia where pork is very popular. In the second source, the encyclopedia of food it says "Armenians prefer pork because of the Russian influence". After the Armenian Genocide that was committed by Turks in 1915, Armenia became part of Russia so that explains the influence but pork is certainly not part of traditional Armenian Cuisine.

In fact, if you ever go to an Armenian church during the holidays, I assure you pork is NEVER served.

This is what it says right now under the meats section: "Armenians eat various meats like mutton, cattle and goat but the most popular meat in Armenian cuisine is pork.[5][20]"

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.104.193 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi 69.123.104.193, thank you very much for taking the time to write a nice, detailled explanation. I do believe that this is exactly your experience, and theoretically, as an Armenian, you are likely much more competent in this regard than me.

All I personally see, though, is: You have removed text that is correctly sourced by a book (example quote: "Most Armenians prefer pork over any other meat, another example of the Russian influence on the Armenian diet. Consumption of pork soars closer to the New York Holiday because a roasted piglet (gochi in Armenian) is a traditional part of the festive table. Pork is the preferred meat for popular indoor and outdoor barbecues, too. Roasted pork chops called chalagach are a favorite part of the barbecue menu.")

Albala, Ken (2011). Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-313-37626-9. Archived from the original on 18 July 2018. Retrieved from Google Books on 2018-09-25.

... and have replaced it with an unsourced statement that appears to be original research.

Best regards

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Holy Family Thornhill

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/6746665-york-catholic-district-school-board-blames-4-9m-deficit-on-province/

https://ejsandps.com/2018/04/27/temporary-relocation-of-e-j-sand/

Here are the links to the Holy Family school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.44.220 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey 99.228.44.220, thank you very much!

I have restored your edit and added the second link as a citation for the statement. The specific edit can be found at: Special:Diff/861781935/prev

While it can sometimes feel annoying, I believe that the "Wikipedia:Verifiability" policy is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths, compared to less trustworthy wikis.

To add the citation, I have used the "Cite" button in the visual editor. I hope this helps.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-40

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

• Ordinary pages can no longer be loaded as javascript. You could do this using ?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript in the URL. Only fully protected pages in the MediaWiki: namespace or user javascript subpages can be loaded as javascript now. This is for better security. [126][127]

Problems

• New and updated translations from translatewiki.net will not reach the wikis for a while. You can still translate messages on translatewiki.net. The Wikimedia wikis will be updated with the new translations later. This is because of work on the translation system. [128][129]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 October. It will be on all wikis from 4 October (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the meeting with the Wikimedia Foundation Search Platform team. The meeting will be on 3 October at 15:00 UTC. See how to join if you want to know how the search function works or have questions.

Future changes

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour. You can read more about this.

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

17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

response

Hi! Thanks for the message - this was my first Wikipedia edit ever. You'll be happy to know that I do not have a conflict of interest, as you worried. The reason I responded is this: "Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (CinereousEagle (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)); this will automatically insert your username and the date." I see that the "History" tab does indeed have my username and date, even though I did not use four tildes. Can you clarify?

Also, I am curious why you flagged me as potentially having a conflict of interest.

Finally, am I using this "talk" section correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinereousEagle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi CinereousEagle, thank you very much for the clarification. About the "signing messages" part, don't worry, that was a general note that only applies to talk pages like this one here, not to articles. It is unrelated to the revision history; it is more like a real "signature" below discussion comments. For example, I will sign this message... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

CinereousEagle, about your second question, I usually do that when someone's first and only contributions have been to one specific biography of a living person. This usually indicates that they are affiliated to the person in some way, and would then actually have a conflict of interest. About the third question, you are using it well; a signature would be the icing of the cake. Thank you for your message and your contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! CinereousEagle (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-41

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 Education Program extension was removed from all Wikimedia projects. You can use the Programs and Events Dashboard or the Fountain instead. [130]

Problems

• There was a problem when you copied and pasted from a table with the visual editor. It could add href where it shouldn't be. This has now been fixed. [131]

Changes later this week

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour. You can read more about this.
• Because of the data centre test there will be no new version of MediaWiki this week. Changes for this week will come next week instead.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

23:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42

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

Problems

• Some pages, edits and users disappeared for a short while after the server switch. Missing content and users was fixed within a day. Some preferences and other things might take a few more days to fix. [132]
• Wikis are updated with new and updated translations from translatewiki.net again. This will happen once a week. The developers are working on fixing the problem so we can have translation updates more often again. [133]

Changes later this week

• When you create an abuse filter that prevents edits you can now write a specific error message for it. Before this all abuse filters that prevented edits had the same error message. [134]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 October. It will be on all wikis from 18 October (calendar).

Meetings

• There will be no more meetings with the Editing team. This is because not enough Wikimedians were interested. To tell developers which bugs you think are the most important you can use Phabricator as normal. [135]
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 17 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing all references to the accusations to Stalin K is a mistake

Hello To Be. I noticed you removed all references to the accusations to Stalin K, although there is a reference and I officially represent Global Voices where we decided to cut relationships with him (as he worked for us several times) till the accusations are cleared. I think at least we should keep the accusations as it is referenced in the article, instead of removing all of them, for the sake of supporting safe spaces for our organizations. Thank you. Gohary 19:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ircpresident: Thank you very much for your message. I have randomly stumbled across the article in the "recent changes" of Wikipedia. Please note that I am not personally involved with the article topic and may lack detailled information that you have.

Regarding the "official representation", please prove your identity to Wikipedia before continuing to claim official representation. Please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate. Feel free to add a new message to my user page informing me of a successful verification.

Regarding the article, please read the following pages carefully before continuing to decide whether this is really a good idea:

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:No_original_research, section "Synthesis of published material"

I have removed an unsourced statement from the lead section of a biography of a living person. The specific edit can be found at Special:Diff/864670021.

I am also afraid that some of the statements and conclusions are not explicitly backed by the source, but might rather be original research. Example: "[...] due to allegations of sexual misbehavior."

If you would like, after reading the aforementioned Wikipedia pages, and perhaps after verifying your identity, to re-add specific well-sourced statements to the article, feel free to do so.

Thank you very much for your understanding, for your contributions to Wikipedia, and in advance for taking the time to review the three Wikipedia links I've provided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: Please see Special:Diff/864686526, hope this helps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Fruit sponge cake

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey 7&6=thirteen, thank you very much, I love this! Please have a slice too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be the kind of editor who likes to help and spread good will. It is good to find a kindred spirit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Welp, I like fruit sponge cake with little cream :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus: Oh hey, thank you very much too! That's a cool surprise. A food section! Please be my guests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Messages by 213.240.254.19

Part 1

Ok very sorry i make error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(This is probably about Special:Diff/864642752 at "A Man Will Rise")

Hi 213.240.254.19, don't worry, and thank you for your many contributions!

I have checked again and fixed the reference link: See Special:Diff/864644909.

Maybe you have a reliable source for the "Ai Noom Gangnam" name? I can add it to the article for you; feel free to reply here. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

i see name of movie in IMDb maybe is original thailand title and for this i add title. Local hero maybe is working title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 213.240.254.19, thank you very much for the explanation. Sadly, IMDb is not a reliable source. It should not be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#IMDb
• Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb
• WP:RS/IMDB

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask any questions here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Have a good day! (smile) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, you too! Enjoy the cookies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

Hi this user > User:TheOldJacobite send me message and told me I could be blocked from editing... :(( I just add title before name of character from movie Cop Land (1997) > Sheriff Freddy Heflin and title Sheriff was remove and add again Freddy Heflin but how is not error this is title and is take place before name of some hero from movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

i am not TheOldJacobite i have no profile reg here this TheOldJacobite send me message that I can be blocked in the future from editing in page of Cop Land (1997) because title how I added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 213.240.254.19, thank you for the message. I have been responding to TheOldJacobite on your talk page. He may be right, please wait a moment. Please allow him to explain. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok i hope no block for me. :( Just title Sheriff i add in page Cop Land (1997) for Stallone character and for admin was error and erased title. very sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, 213.240.254.19. I am not an administrator. TheOldJacobite is not an administrator. We are just "normal" users. We just try to help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok you talk with him for title ? is error ? in some pages from wikiepdia in movies you will find title Sheriff to take place before name of some hero in list cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks you too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.254.19 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Feel free to ask again if you have new questions. Also see: Wikipedia:Teahouse. The people there are very friendly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for a Special:NewSection page

Adding this to my talk page history for reference and on-wiki chronology: phab:T207577 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-43

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

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 October. It will be on all wikis from 25 October (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 24 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Community Wishlist Survey begins on 29 October. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals from 29 October to 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 16 November to 30 November.

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

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"You appear to be an experienced user."

"You appear to be an experienced user."

That's interesting. How'd you know?

Benjamin (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin, nice to meet you. I'm happy to see that someone noticed and wondered.

The message is placed inside <span class="autoconfirmed-show"></span> HTML tags. It is only shown to users who are autoconfirmed, manually confirmed, extended confirmed (like you), or administrators. And this works because in MediaWiki:Common.css, there is the following default rule for all editors:

/* Hide stuff meant for accounts with special permissions. Made visible again in
   [[MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css]], [[MediaWiki:Group-patroller.css]],
   [[MediaWiki:Group-templateeditor.css]], [[MediaWiki:Group-extendedmover.css]]
   and [[Mediawiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css]]. */
.sysop-show,
.templateeditor-show,
.extendedmover-show,
.patroller-show,
.autoconfirmed-show,
.user-show {
	display: none;
}

Also see MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css, MediaWiki:Group-patroller.css, MediaWiki:Group-templateeditor.css, MediaWiki:Group-extendedmover.css and Mediawiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css.

I originally wanted to limit this special message to "extended confirmed" users, but that is not possible, and I guess "autoconfirmed" is a better differentiator anyway. I chose to do this because a large part of my userpage's visitors are probably not registered nor experienced with Wikipedia, and it makes no sense to overload them with a colorful meta-dashboard and buttons they can't use.

Also, for those who make the step from "non-autoconfirmed" and "autoconfirmed" the first time while interacting with me, this may be a nice surprise.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Proofreading draft

Hello,

You kindly offered to proofread my re-drafted article before I resubmitted the piece. I would very much appreciate any advice you may have... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DeVOL_Kitchens

Many thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clb060892 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-26T13:30:10 (UTC)

Hi Clb060892, nice to meet you!

My message has mainly been about a possible conflict of interest, and maybe about paid contribution disclosure. Please make sure to read these two pages; the former is an important guideline, and the latter is a policy that refers to Wikipedia's terms of service.

If you have read these pages and would like an experienced editor to review the draft, feel free to click the "Resubmit" button. By creating a draft and submitting it for review, you are already doing nicely what I had been referring to. By clicking the "Resubmit" button, you are automatically asking an experienced editor to proofread the draft. This may take some time, but it will definitely be reviewed, and the new edits will be considered.

Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to do this, and thank you very much for your contributions so far. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44

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

Recent changes

• You can post proposals for the Community Wishlist Survey. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals until 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 16 November to 30 November.
• The wikis now have a content security policy report. This means that you might get a warning in your javascript console when you load external resources in your user scripts. For security reasons it is recommended that you don't do this. It might not be possible to load external resources in your scripts in the future. [136]

Problems

• Your watchlist can show which changes you have already seen. This did not work for a few days. It has been fixed. [137]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 October. It will be on all wikis from 1 November (calendar).
• The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer available. It will be removed from Special:Preferences. It has not been the standard editor for a long time. It was replaced by the 2010 wikitext editor. [138][139]

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 31 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Response regarding question on paid advocacy

Hi,

I saw your message regarding removing a contribution on Bengt Lundvall's page. I didn't realize it was inappropriate to do that. I'm new to wikipedia. I'm not a paid advocate. I am voluntarily and freely creating a wikipedia page because I think it should be on wikipedia considering how active the person is in innovation policy. I also wanted to learn and experience how to make a page on wikipedia to contribute. Also, have I put this message in the right place? Terrified now of doing everything wrong! Gahh.--Agent lonely (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agent lonely, thank you very much for your message, and thank you for your contributions. Please don't worry; Wikipedia encourages you to be bold.

Thank you also for clarifying that you are not being paid for your edits; I was a little worried because of the "Agent" name, the external links added to articles (1, 2), and the new biography in the sandbox. Because both the links and the biography seem to benefit the same person, I believed that you might be an "Agent" paid by the article subject. It is good to know that this is not the case; I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

There may still be something Wikipedia calls a "conflict of interest", but that is something that you personally need to decide: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, an enormously useful page)

If you have no such conflict of interest, then I would personally recommend writing a message like:

I have read and understand the "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" guideline. I am not contributing to Wikipedia about myself, my family, friends, clients, employers or financial and other relationships.

...on your talk page, User talk:Agent lonely, to clarify the situation. You are not required to do this, but I believe that it would be a good idea to avoid misunderstandings regarding your username and contributions.

About the sandbox page, I'll happily assist with submitting it for review. I am not a reviewer myself, but after submission, it is guaranteed to be reviewed as a part of a large queue. If it meets the standards for a new article, the article is then moved to the "mainspace", where all the "normal" articles like "Albert Einstein" and "Zebra" can be read by the world.

The message is in a good place; to make it even easier to find, I will copy this conversation to your talk page. I will also collapse the "paid" question, because that is clearly not relevant. You may also freely remove any messages you like from your talk page, at any time, without having to specify any reason. Or, if you too prefer archiving instead of deleting, I will happily set up an automatic archive for you, like you can see at the top of my talk page.

No need to be terrified. Even if you have a conflict of interest and disclose it, there will not be negative consequences. All we'd then ask you to do is avoiding to edit the affected articles directly, and instead suggesting changes on the article talk pages. The draft will be reviewed completely independently of any conflict of interest, and even independently of paid editing. If the person is notable and the article is good, then it is accepted and moved to the mainspace. About notability, you may want to read Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I have not taken a closer look at your sandbox draft yet; you can probably better decide than me if the person is really notable.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you very much in advance for taking the time to review these long guidelines. In a nutshell, the two important links are:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The following messages have been copied from User_talk:Agent_lonely#Response_regarding_question_on_paid_advocacy for my talk page archive.

Hi ToBeFreeThank you very much for the advice and the helpful links! It has been a lot of reading but worthwhile! Your comments have been very constructive and have helped me understand a bit more on how being on Wikipedia works. On my chosen username, I was recently interested in writing about human agency and loneliness so I thought it would be a cute private reference for me but I see now it was a poor choice of username and understand what it suggests to everyone else outside my mind! So I will take your suggestion and post that declaration on my talkpage! So, please no apologies necessary. And yes, please I would appreciate help in submitting the page for review so if it passes, it can be moved to the mainspace. Agent lonely (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agent lonely, you're welcome. This is very nice to hear.

I have now collapsed the "conflict of interest" welcome message as well, and replaced it by one with cookies below. Feel free to remove the collapsed messages (or/and any other messages you like) at any time.

Above your sandbox draft, I have now added a box with a blue button. Clicking this button will automatically submit the article for review. Within about one month of this submission, the article will be reviewed by an experienced editor. Usually, the first submission attempt gets rejected; this is normal. The reviewer will notice and explain possible problems, like a lack of sources that allow others to verify the notability of the article subject. I am personally not a reviewer, and it would probably be hubristic of me to "review" your article from my position. There is one thing I can definitely point out as an issue that needs to be fixed before submission: The orange template at the top, which you have apparently correctly noticed and added yourself (?) -- it points out a possible problem that needs to be fixed before submission. To make it easier to create inline citations, you might like to use the "Cite" button of the Visual Editor. The "Cite" button allows you to automatically generate an inline "reference" from a link or an ISBN. It is important to put these "inline citations" inside the article text, not just below it, so that each statement can be verified individually.

As soon as you think "I have no idea how to improve this further", feel free to press the blue "submit" button.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-45

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

Recent changes

• You can now use TemplateWizard to edit templates. This works only with the 2010 wikitext editor and not in the visual editor or the 2017 wikitext editor. If you click on you can enter the information in a pop-up. You can turn on TemplateWizard in your beta feature preferences. [140]

Changes later this week

• You can choose to see edit conflicts in a two-column view. This is a beta feature. You can find it in your preferences. The interface for the two-column edit conflict will change. You can read more.
• When you edit with the visual editor you can use the "Automatic" citation tab. This helps you generate citations. You will now be able to write plain text citations or the title of a journal article or a book in this tab. This will search the Crossref and WorldCat databases and add the top result. [141]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 November. It will be on all wikis from 8 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 7 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B10D:D600:B1F9:FAC7:DFAC:AAE6 (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2600:100D:B10D:D600:B1F9:FAC7:DFAC:AAE6, nice to meet you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46

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 old mobile browsers can use the watchlist again. This has not worked for a while. These browsers are called grade C browsers. This helps for example Windows Phone 8.1 with Internet Explorer and Lumia 535 with Windows 10. [142]

Problems

• You can choose to see edit conflicts in a two-column view. This is a beta feature. You can find it in your preferences. Users who use this view saw the edit conflict resolution page when they wanted to see a preview. This has been fixed. [143][144][145]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 November. It will be on all wikis from 15 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 14 November at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You can use the content translation tool to translate articles. The developers are working on a new version. One of the changes will be a maintenance category. Articles where users add a lot of text from machine translation without changing it will be in that category. This is so the community can review it. The users will also have been warned before they publish the article that it has a lot of unchanged text from machine translations. [146]

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

19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/868532788

Hello, Bonsaiburglar here regarding Special:Diff/868532788, I'd love to get it all cleared up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaiburglar (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bonsaiburglar, nice to meet you.

If you have been editing as "198.179.137.230" before, please read the following page before continuing to edit:

• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that on your talk page, at User talk:Bonsaiburglar. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure, on your user page, at User:Bonsaiburglar. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-47

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

Recent changes

• You can vote on proposals in the Community Wishlist Survey. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can vote until 30 November.
• There is an A/B test for sameAs data. This is to make it easier to find the right information with a search engine. This changes the metadata for a wiki page. It doesn't change how the page looks. [147]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 November at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia wikis use templates to show readers there are problems with the content on some pages. For example if there are no sources or the page needs to be rewritten. The mobile website will soon show more information when you use these templates. Some templates may need to be updated. [148]
• The Education Program extension was removed from all Wikimedia projects. The database tables used by the extension will be archived. This will happen in a month. If you want the information on your wiki you should move it to a normal wiki page. [149]

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

23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ToBeFree. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-48

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

• On wikis with translatable pages you could create a mess when you moved a page that had translatable subpages. A subpage is when you use / to create a new page: /wiki/Page/Subpage. The subpages would be moved but not the translations. The subpages are no longer automatically be moved. This is to make it safer to move pages. [150]

Changes later this week

• The advanced search interface will be available by default on all Wikimedia wikis. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist. It's already active on German, Farsi, Arabic and Hungarian Wikipedia. [151]
• Special:UnusedCategories show empty categories with no files or other categories. You can soon choose to not show soft redirect categories or some maintenance categories there. You can do this with the magic word __EXPECTUNUSEDCATEGORY__. [152]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 November. It will be on all wikis from 29 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 28 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The mw.util.jsMessage() function was deprecated in 2012. It will be removed next week. Look for the warning Use of "mw.util.jsMessage" is deprecated in the JavaScript console to know if you use an affected script or gadget. If you are a gadget maintainer you should check if your JavaScript code contains mw.util.jsMessage. There is a migration guide. It explains how to use mw.notify instead. [153]

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

22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-49

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

• Admins will not be able to unblock themselves if they are blocked by someone other than themselves. This is because it can cause damage if someone else takes over an admin account and other admins can't block them. If this is a problem for your community you can report it on Phabricator. You can also ask questions on Meta. There is a discussion on Phabricator about how to solve this if two admins fight with each other on a small wiki. [154]
• Small SVG images are now bigger when you see them in MediaViewer. [155]
• You can go to a section from the edit summary by clicking on the section name. Before this you had to click on the arrow. [156]
• When you jumped to a footnote that was referenced several times in an article it could be difficult to see where you were in the text. Now there are jump marks and highlights to help you find your way back. [157][158]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 5 December at 16:00 (UTC) and at 23:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

An award for you

		Exploration of the Unknown
		I hereby award you the Exploration of the Unknown award! You are being recognized for your courage and willingness to test a feature, gadget, or tool in development and for the constructive feedback you provided. Hey ToBeFree, thank you for your constructive feedback on the latest design prototype from the Advanced Mobile Contributions project. Your collaboration is appreciated. We'll have more project updates soon so stay tuned : ) AHollender (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(my feedback can be found at mw:Reading/Web/Advanced_mobile_contributions/Navigation_prototype_feedback#ToBeFree)
AHollender (WMF): Thank you very much for your work on this amazing new mobile design project, and thank you very much for the beautiful award! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your resume

I believe you have to stopppp editing my pages I am a Harvard dropout and I think i'm more intellecct than you.Im only trying to be helpful to your original resume it generally identify as a Binary Red dwarf star and I find offensive that you are telling people to like at my home.Rigel is also very offended with your resume. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocoyoy su amigo elfante (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Rigel? Oh. Greetings from NGC 6188 Sector NN-T c3-5 A 6. ☺️ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi. Long time no see. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Abelmoschus Esculentus! Nice to see you again, and thank you very much for the coffee.

I have seen what has happened, please do not let this get you down. I know that we will meet on the Huggle IRC channel again, perhaps in a few months. You may ping me in your request if you'd like to request a second non-admin opinion. You might like to write something like {{subst:u|ToBeFree}}: Per [[User talk:ToBeFree#Coffee by Abelmoschus Esculentus]] you stated that you might like to add a non-admin comment here. ~~~~" below your request. The ping will only work if added together with a signature; you may want to enable "successful" and "failed" mention notifications in your preferences to get notified of this. I have noticed that this is very useful for me.

I like your new signature! In my opinion, having good text in front of the signature renders all HTML formatting superfluous. Also, I prefer people to recognize me by my username, not the formatting of my signature. Personally, I'd even recommend removing the bold formatting from it and restoring a clearly visible "talk" link that new users will intuitively understand.

I am currently relatively "inactive" compared to my normal activity; this will change at December 1. I'm currently doing a full-time internship at a company located 1.5 hours of public transport time away from me. That's 8+1.5+1.5=11 hours a workday, if the trains arrive on schedule. And because that's not enough work yet, I parallelly need to prepare the "final talk" for my bachelor thesis.

Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I may request it next month. However, I afraid that it would be canvassing. I may request admins like Oshwah or Mz7 to review my edits before I apply. But if you still want to nominate me yourself, go ahead

Actually I don't like this black bold font. I like green (and dark blue), but I don't know which color matches best with it (pure green looks weird). Do you have any suggestions? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 03:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

PS you may take a look at my user page. If the user wants to leave a message but they clicked into my user page, they should see the hatnote :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus I guess when asking a specific administrator, they might grant the right on personal request, skipping WP:PERM. I personally don't really like this and think it should be done centrally and transparently at WP:PERM, to avoid "asking the other parent" in a dispute with one specific administrator, especially after having been denied at the last, relatively recent, request. When asking them, I personally would recommend making very clear that you're asking only for advice to go to WP:PERM afterwards, and that you do not want the right to be directly assigned by the specific administrator. But that's just my subjective gut feeling.

Nomination by me directly, oh! That's an interesting idea, I really didn't think about this before. I believe that when I do this, it will likely be granted. But that's not because I'm ToBeFree; that's because I would only request it when I am certain that it would be granted.

Okay, here's my offer, but you may not like it. I will do this; I will nominate you for rollback if you don't do it. I will do this, even if you do not remind or ask me. This is now on my to-do list, and this section will not be archived until you have rollback. But I will only do it after December 1, and I have a few requirements:

• Relatively recently, Special:Diff/864618610 happened. That's okay. The problem is that it has not been undone by you, but except -- of all the people -- by Serial Number 54129, who has been criticizing you (scolding harshly, in my opinion, but not without justification) about exactly this issue here and here before. This is a nightmare. They have used a friendly edit summary when reverting you, but I guess they might even voice their opposal at WP:PERM if you requested rollback there now. For this reason, incidents like this specific one should be at least one month away from any nomination that I can make with good conscience.
• When this happens, shit happens. It's not as if I have not been criticized for bad rollbacks before. I do notice a difference, though, and that is choosing to apologize with a good, understandable explanation why it happened, and implying that if it happens ever again, it will be a rare mistake among thousands of good edits again. Sadly, you do not seem to have taken this chance, at Special:PermanentLink/864782865#Butia_eriospatha. This would have been the perfect chance for a good explanation -- please take the time to provide one if it happens again.
• Obviously, avoiding errors by stopping to edit will not help with getting the request granted either, so this will be a point you like: Please continue what you are doing. You are doing a really good job, I can only repeat: Do not let this get you down. Dedication and patience are nearly the two only things required to reach almost any goal. When the goal is very high, the amount of required "dedication" may rise to unhealthy levels, and one lifetime may turn out to be too short for extreme goals, but the point is still valid: Dedication and patience will break any wall. Look at the stone steps in front of old churches and realize that they have been formed by human feet.

About your user page, because of the amount of colorful, large images and tables, I believe that a new user who does not know where to look exactly will probably not see the notice at all. A "talk" link in the signature would definitely be easier to see and understand. There has been at least one user repeatedly editing my user page instead of my talk page, in good faith, actively looking for a better way to add a message before. And I did already have the large green button on my talk page, but it did not help, because they did not find my talk page in the first place. This happens.

About signature color, hm. You can not even be 100% certain that the page background is white. All you know is: Plain links will be displayed in a way that is meaningful to the user. Even when they're blind and using screen reading tools. Plain text, and plain links, will work for 100% of the internet users. For all browsers. Even for school project self-created browsers. Even if they do not understand CSS at all. Even for terminal browsers like lynx (note the black background). The best tip, ever, for accessibility and compatibility, when it comes to signatures, is to uncheck the "wiki markup" checkbox in your signature settings. So much about accessibility and compatibility. About fanciness, ask Oshwah instead.

PS: Or copy the background CSS at the top of my dashboard, the mountains and the river. Now that's a fancy signature background, but the syntax is too long.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your precious opinion, TBF. Yeah that was my mistake, I should have apologized (Well, if you check my talk archives, they are 50% of apologies, especially the first 5 archives ). After a revocation of rollback, admins will certainly be much harsh. It was not easy to be perfect, you know. That's why you see me only making about 10 reverts a day. I think I'll keep this signature for a while. Happy reverting :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is so freaking cringey ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you're welcome. :) Yeah, I see what you mean -- but I think this is a good way to deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Please explain how my last edit was biased....

Thanks!

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.58.237 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2018-12-06 (UTC)

Hi Eric, nice to meet you.

First, I'd like to note that factual, neutral corrections are very welcome, although they must be made with great care. For more information about this, please see:

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

About your specific edit, Special:Diff/872286145, you would need to provide reliable, independent sources that call CarbFix a "proven, safe, and cost effective method", and include them as citations in your edit, if you would like to add this specific text again. Please take a moment to review the following guideline before continuing to edit:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Thank you very much for your time and understanding.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit shocking.

I am a Professor at University College London, and The University of Iceland, and the CNRS in Toulouse France. CarbFix is a research program that I co-run. As an academic and scientist I am neutral and factual, this is my career. If I do not edit this page any number of misunderstandings and misinformations will occur.

How do you suggest I maintain the accuracy of this page without the right to edit?

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.58.237 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

Thank you very much for the explanation and the added source. I was hoping that per the FAQ and the guideline, you might choose to place these on the article's talk page instead of directly making the edit, but I can hardly blame anyone else than me for offering "if you would like to add this specific text again."

I will hopefully be able to access the linked source later to see if this is an accurate citation, but I assume that it is. I hope that it is an independent source; that's harder for me to verify. I am also unsure if this is sufficient justification to add promotional speech to the lead of the article.

Please rest assured that I will not undo the contribution again. I will instead create a discussion at Talk:CarbFix, which you are very welcome to join. Wikipedia offers a nice way to request a third opinion if needed, at WP:3O. Maybe we can use that if needed. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:CarbFix#Neutrality of the lead section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Striking the "please rest assured" part after discovering a misinterpretation of the word "independent" so strong that it is uncontroversial to remove the statement from the article. See Special:Diff/872618538 and Talk:CarbFix#Neutrality of the lead section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-50

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

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 December. It will be on all wikis from 13 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 12 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• New accounts will need passwords that are at least 8 characters long. Admins, interface admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, CentralNotice admins, global renamers, check users, stewards and some other user groups will need passwords that are at least 10 characters long. This is because an attacker could cause damage to the wikis if they took over these accounts. [159][160]
• When you hover over a footnote it will show you the reference as a pop-up. This is so you don't have to jump down to the bottom of the page to see a reference. This will happen in 2019. Some wikis already have gadgets that do this. You will be able to turn it off. [161]

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

17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sending MoS Warnings

Your message is not constructive because I have no idea what you're referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.137.198 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 50.89.137.198

Sorry for the unspecific message, and thank you for asking for clarification. The specific point is called "Editorializing" and can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Editorializing

I am referring to the word "Anecdotally" added in Special:Diff/873065145. This appears to be your personal opinion, which is fine, but should be avoided in an encyclopedic article.

I hope this helps; feel free to ask any questions if there is still something unclear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: The specific section of the main "Manual of style" page is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to agree that an encyclopedia is for facts not opinions. The fact in this case is that the sentence "Since pasteurization was not yet available, many children faced sickness from consuming raw milk." is coming from an anecdote. There is no scientific reference to this in the article. What part of this is my opinion? If you remove anecdotally the statement is being presented as fact. Just because someone wrote something in a newspaper article makes it fact? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.137.198 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 50.89.137.198, the Wikipedia article at Wawa_(company)#History uses the following reference:

The Wawa dairy was born in 1890, when there was no pasteurization and children often got sick from raw milk. George Wood, a New Jersey businessman, bought 1,000 acres in Wawa and imported cows from the English Channel island of Guernsey. Then he hit upon a marvelous marketing strategy: He had a group of doctors certify that his milk was sanitary and safe.
— https://web.archive.org/web/20160303234716/http://articles.philly.com/1989-06-15/news/26107992_1_franklin-mint-wawa-road-post-office

This does seem to be an assertion of fact by the source. The source does not say anything about an "anecdote". Please explain where your suspicion comes from; if the source is not reliable, the statement would need to be deleted entirely. Please do provide a detailled explanation at Talk:Wawa_(company) when doing so. The last discussion there is from 2013; feel free to start a discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is an anecdote. There is nothing scientific about it and it has no references of its own. What makes an "assertion of fact" presentable as fact in an encyclopedia? I'll go ahead and delete the sentence and add this to the talk page so you or others can explain why a purely anecdotal source can be cited as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.137.198 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is not an anecdote. The source is the Philadelphia Inquirer. Please see the article's talk page for more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019!
	Hi ToBeFree, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. See you in Huggle. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

That is a wonderful surprise. How cool, thank you very much, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all readers! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Message by EDively

Why didn't you contact me before you removed my addition? My only agenda is to report the truth. If you don't believe causes of the protests include income inequality and corruption, you need to do some research. Upon doing your research, please add them to the Yellow Vest Movement page again. Thank you. EDively (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi EDively, nice to meet you. Please provide reliable sources that say that objective, proven corruption, not just subjectively felt "corruption", is an important cause of the French protests, which are the main subject of the article. This rather seems to be about unhappiness about tax changes, or lack thereof. The whole article contains the word "corruption" one time, and it is not related to the main protests in France. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

1. The causes of this movement are not relegated to France. That is where it began but protesters of each nation have their own reasons. 2. You did not address the income inequality cause you removed. 2. You did not address removing my submissions without discussing it with me first. 4. Unproven corruption is a cause for citizens to protest. Just because corruption has not been confirmed does not mean people won't protest.

You may not agree with a reason people are demonstrating but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate cause. Please leave your agenda out of the truth. Thank you. EDively (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, EDively.

Regarding 1, if the whole movement began in France, then the "causes" of the movement should probably be referring to France. The situation in other countries is a section of the article, but the main topic seems to be the France movement. The infobox seems to use a similar prioritization. My main point wasn't the article topic, though. It was an unsourced questionable "cause" that does not appear to be a neutral description of the causes. In Special:Diff/873628963, Special:Diff/873629330 and Special:Diff/873631807, you seem to have added non-neutral statements to the top of the "causes" list in the infobox without providing any citation.
2. Mathematical "inequality" will always be there, unless everyone exactly receives the same amount of money. A perceived "inequality" is either a subjective term or always present in every country by definition.
3. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
4. Sure. The cause isn't "corruption" then, however. The cause is "perceived corruption", "alleged corruption", something like that, but not "corruption". We need to be careful to avoid stating opinions as facts.

Thank you for providing a reliable reference in Special:Diff/873757546, for example. All that is needed to restore the edits I reverted would be a similarly reliable source that says that "Income inequality is a cause of the Yellow Vest Movement", or "Government and corporate corruption is a cause of the Yellow Vest Movement", or something like that. I would be surprised to hear about these, though, because both statements appear to be non-neutral to me. Feel free to ask others at Talk:Yellow_vests_movement by creating a new section there. To refer to our discussion, you can use the following link: [[User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 1#Message by EDively]] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Yellow vests movement#Brexit-Dubious. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi

When can you talk

Stephen Wardell Curry (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
^{Whitespace removed. Original comment can be found at Special:PermanentLink/874089658#Hi. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)}

(edit conflict)Hi Stephen Wardell Curry, you can reply below 24/7. I will usually answer within 24 hours.

If there are questions about a specific edit, please give me a link to it, so that I can explain possible problems with it. To get a link, click the "View history" link at the top right of the article you're talking about, look for your edit, click the "prev" link next to it, check if that's the right edit and copy the link from your browser's address bar. You can then paste the link below.

If this is about Special:Diff/873632492: Your edits do not seem to be neutral, and they did not provide a reliable source for your statements.

Please take the time to read at least the introduction of the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

It is important that you read at least the lead section of these pages before continuing to edit the Albany, California article. Please also be careful about this:

• Wikipedia:Edit warring

I hope this helps. Have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You are awesome!

www.dreamworks.com/trolls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Wardell Curry (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
^{Whitespace removed. Original comment can be found at Special:PermanentLink/874090758#Hi. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)}

I know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

2018-12-17T02:26:40 Mz7 blocked Stephen Wardell Curry (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

please discuss that here, we have to delete all the paid articles meant for advertizing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Huge_Amount_of_Paid_Editing_and_Paid_article_creation_is_done_in_India Nuksanhai (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Technically "resolved", but not in the way I expected it to end, and with a strange gut feeling. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51

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

Tech News

• Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 7 January 2019.

Recent changes

• Some templates that show notices about the content of the page will now be shown on the mobile website. In many cases they were hidden before. [162][163]
• Admins can no longer unblock themselves, except for self-blocks. A blocked admin can block the user who blocked them but no one else. This is so no one can block all admins on a wiki without being stopped. [164]
• The ParserMigration extension has been removed. It compared the result of two versions of the MediaWiki wikitext parsing pipeline. It was used when we moved to the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy.

Problems

• <ref> tags can use parameters such as "name" or "group". For example <ref name="adams" group="books">. If a <ref> tag has more than two parameters all parameters are ignored. You don't get a warning that they don't work. This will soon be fixed. [165]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 December. It will be on all wikis from 20 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Android app team are working on making it easier to edit on mobile phones. You can read more about these plans. If you have an Android phone and speak at least two languages you can help testing in English. Tell Dchen (WMF) you want to be part of the testing by writing on her talk page or email her.
• tiles.wmflabs.org and wma.wmflabs.org will stop working. They have no maintainers and run an old operating system. Tools which use it could stop working. This includes the mapnik gadget, hill shading, and hike and bike layers. New maintainers could help out and keep it going. [166]

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

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Message by Bananasinpajamasarebananasinpajamas12345

hello tobefree

i thought that was the sandbox!? i just joined like 3 minites ago. can you show me where the sandbox is.

Thanks, my name is too long to write — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananasinpajamasarebananasinpajamas12345 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed whitespace and added a heading to this comment. The original version of the comment can be found at Special:PermanentLink/874225504 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bananasinpajamasarebananasinpajamas12345, the sandbox is at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Have fun. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for assisting me in program development and being a positive influence throughout the community. Your technical know-how and urgent help others makes you an impeccable choice for this barnstar. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 23:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow Redactyll, thank you very much! It is an honor to be able to join development as a non-coder, especially this early in the project history, at version 1. I'd love to add a barnstar on your page too, for creating the tool. I'll probably do so manually soon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I have my sights set beyond that tool. While I use the tool and run vandalism rollbacks and mark good edits as well... good edits, then I'm accumulating data. At first, there were lots of good edits showing up for me to rate, but now, I'm only seeing a few good edits show up for me to rate, as the times when I mark edit data, the system saves that information and judges new information based on that. In fact, since I have all of this information about Wikipedia ready for a program to use, I've decided that the program might just be the start, where I get good/bad data. Since every day I'm seeing considerably less false positives, I've decided that I'm going to keep doing this for a month or so, then I'm going to take the code and put it into a bot. Due to the fact that I have all this information and a good checker, soon it should be enough for a counter-vandalism bot to properly run. I'm excited. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 00:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Redactyll: Oh, this is about statistics and artificial intelligence! Now that's really cool. If you need a sandbox, Wikimedia provides dumps of the whole database -- getting these to run in an own instance may prove to be difficult, though. I always keep a copy of the latest revisions of all enwiki pages on a separate hard drive, for the extremely unlikely event that I ever become the last human to possess a backup of Wikipedia. It's about 30 GiB in bz2, that's small enough to be negligible for my overall space usage. You, on the other hand, probably need one of the huge all-revisions dumps. I never touched them, because they're excessive in size. They contain all the vandalism ever added to Wikipedia, including vandalism that was just meant to bloat the database as strongly as possible.

About the time needed for training, of course that depends on your data and the quality of the tool, but I would rather assume this to be a year of working for a single person. And as soon as you start delegating the task, you need to enforce extremely strict definitions of "vandalism" or the volunteers will unknowingly destroy the project in good faith.

May I curiously ask which data you are using to feed the database? Edit time, edit IP location if available, added words, removed words...? You may want to use mw:ORES scores as well, or help improving that mechanism. If I see correctly, the ORES database is being maintained by the mw:Wikimedia Scoring Platform team. Maybe you know them already, or maybe that's a new interesting perspective.

I am using an ORES minimum score filter of 100 with Huggle, and I am pretty impressed by the quality of the filter. There are still a lot of good-faith nonconstructive edits, and a considerable amount of non-rollbackable edits too, passing the filter, however. The former can often be helped with using the various information templates in many cases, the latter I sometimes inspect manually or ignore. None of the former or latter would be suitable to be rolled back by a bot, so your criteria obviously will be much stricter than mine.

What ClueBot doesn't do, but a bot could theoretically do, is making "unsourced controversial BLP claim" type reverts. If you get told to do something else than ClueBot already does, you may want to try creating an artifical intelligence that does not suck at identifying these special cases with a false-positive rate of below 0.1% while still catching about half of the actual violations. If you manage to achieve that, and if it is by years of work, you would probably make Wikipedia a better place in the moment you turn on that bot. Or SPAM links and advertising. A paid PR manager being told that their edit was promotional and spammy enough to be catched by a bot would make me smile.

That all said, this is horribly dangerous territory as soon as it gets to a live implementation. I don't know how long it took for ClueBot NG to become approved and accepted by the whole community, but I believe that this must have involved a huge amount of programming skills, time, dedicated and disciplined volunteer work, failures, failures, failures, skilled persuasion and never giving up. A month feels too short to fill the database with information that ORES and ClueBot NG don't yet have. Please make sure not to release a bot as "finished" that merely extends ClueBot's functionality in a way that could be similarly achieved by increasing the false positive rate setting of ClueBot NG itself. Specifically, you would be required to beat ClueBot NG's 0.1% rate while still catching vandalism that ClueBot NG didn't see. I believe this to be a high goal that can surely be reached with modern algorithms and mathematics, but perhaps not live on enwiki before 2020. I have very high hopes for this bot, I have independently already seen a need for it, but fitting this need will be a task that can be described as "second job" rather than "hobby". Good luck, and keep me posted! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Uncle Sam wants YOU for the RAVSS helper position!

Hi! It's weirddactyll again. I've got the next task that I need for you to do to be able to have the bot to work. I left you a wee lil note on this page for what you can do to help. Please follow those directions, then after you click the rollback button that sends RAVSS data. The instructions for how to give data to the bot system can be found here: at this to-do page. Please ignore the rest of it, the part for you says ToBeFree: stuff for you here to do to give the data to RAVSS database to help the bot identify edits as good/bad. If you do this, the database receives stuff! To help you get through this, I've got a beer and some WikiLove incoming! THANK YOU for all of your help. You've been a huge help with RAVSS, and I'm putting you on the credits for the bot. I really appreciate it. If I can do ANYTHING at all to pay you back, if I can do anything for you at all, then I'll do it. I can't tell you how helpful you are. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 04:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 04:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S You are right about taking a year for one person. So, I've gotten twelve people to make it take a month 😊 Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 04:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

More information I've been able to see ClueBot's ANN database, and taken inspiration from that. I use ORES score, CVN score, STiki Metadata, and RATTP protocol, and also match "neutral keys" in each of the rollbacked edits. In addition to this, I got people to help out by showing "rollbackable" and not just vandalism edits. Go ahead and add a year to the timeline, for every part, my dates were just plain unrealistic. I have 14 programmers who know Python who I for sure didn't get off of LinkedIn who I've got who are interested in making AI. This won't be a bot we're making, it's going to be a failure for the next billion times then a bot. I personally am investing my time into it, decided to use my sabbatical for it. Do note, the bot will be on [test.wikipedia.org] instead of EnWiki. I'll just keep trying again, and it will work soon, thanks to your extremely helpful advice and the huge group of RTRC users. Thanks. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Redactyll: Wow, this is amazing. Keep up the awesome project management. I think you've got the potential and dedication to get this running. I'm still skeptical about the month, but this is definitely the right way. About classification of edits, would you mind / wouldn't it be helpful to use my Huggle classifications instead? I love using Huggle...

I need to get some sleep now but I'll be back tomorrow! (that is, "today" for normal people^^) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Side note: You may want to use Oshwah's contributions as AI input. I mean, seriously. He is approaching the 400k edit mark at the moment, and a noticeable part of that is (*polishes apple*) high-quality Huggle output. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, about RTRC: I did use that tool in the past, but that was before I received the "rollback" flag. In the moment I switched from RTRC to Huggle, I suddenly became able to properly deal with the huge amount of edits happening at the same time, often 120 per minute. Using the ORES filter and having a tool that semi-automates the warnings and ANI reports, I am now often able to do real-time monitoring rather than picking a few edits out of an overwhelming queue. Time that was previously spent by opening a talk page and choosing the next warning template is now used by carefully checking if an edit should be rolled back or not. As a result, I am able to spend more time on evaluation while dealing with more edits. I didn't believe this to be possible before, but it is, and it greatly improves my false-positive and false-negative rates. I do about 100 rollbacks a day while maintaining pristine quality.

I adhere to a strict policy regarding the "Q" key, which makes Huggle do an uncommented "vandalism" rollback. The rollback summary is empty in this case, and this is only applicable if an edit is clearly vandalism. In most cases, I choose the "test edit" option, because most "vandalism" actually seems to be test edits. If I do use the "Q" key, there is a good reason for it. Please use my edit history, starting at, say, 2018-10-01 (to clearly remove the learning phase), and search for Huggle-rollbacks that do not contain an explanation. These are safe to feed into the bot. Doing so will give you a larger and higher-quality amount of data than we could achieve by making me wrestle with a tool that I abandoned for inefficiency long ago. A part of the quality is also that Huggle is fast, and that RTRC is slow. This needs to be taken into account. I can't "rollback" an edit via RTRC if someone came along with Huggle first. All that would be left for me are edits that a Huggler ignored. When I started dealing with vandalism, this happened very often. Trying to evade the problem by spending less time for evaluation would definitely be a bad idea. Using RTRC instead of Huggle would, for me, either mean additional frustration or lower quality reverts. That can't be good for the project, so let's use Huggle for my database input.

Carefully selecting a few active and experienced Huggle users to fill the database has two advantages:

• They don't have to do any additional work, and
• they don't even need to be bothered about the project.

They do what they always did, they need to sign up nowhere, their contributions are freely licensed, it's a win-win scenario. No need to look for volunteers who are willing to invest additional time; just look for these who already do it good every day. The only selection criterion you need is "conservative usage of Huggle's Q button". Not every Huggle user does that, some use "Q" very often. In extreme cases, rollback permissions are being removed, but "just good enough to avoid losing permissions" isn't good database input either. Don't blindly take all Huggle users, evaluate each individually. They're easy to find by the "Huggle" tag or the "HG" edit summary.

You may even take more sophisticated approaches than just selecting specific users. For example, I guess that rollback quality is best in the middle of a session, while it increases at the beginning and decreases to the end. We're humans and we do get tired. When we notice, we close Huggle, but the quality may already have decreased an hour ago. It may also take a while to "ramp up" at the beginning of a session. We're humans and we need a moment to "get into the flow". If you manage to feed that into your algorithms, you may be able to create a very-high-quality database, although it takes longer to collect the required amount of edits.

One last word to keep in mind: Pure vandalism may not be the right territory to start a new bot. You're trying to surpass ClueBot NG at what it does, but that may really be the wrong approach. If you're interested in delivering noticeable impact, creating a bot that catches 50% instead of 40% of all vandalism won't be reaching that goal. Maybe it would really be a good idea to do something else that ClueBot NG can't do, by design. As mentioned before, responding to BLP or SPAM edits could be more helpful to the community than catching 10% more vandalism. And: For all edits that you're feeding into the database, there was a human who catched and undid the edit. If I was to criticize the bot, my most powerful criticism would be "the whole database consists of proof that your bot isn't needed". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help needed for Halik edits

Hi I’m Pipamidalton and need your help with controlling vandal edits on this page. This television series is trending, attracting several editors that use this Wikipedia article to vandalize the work done by other good faith editors. These unknown users edit such as changing descriptions using derogatory words. I’ve tried to contact the iserID’s involved but I get no response. Can you tag to restrict editing for extended confirm users and higher level editors only? Thank you Pipamidalton (talk)

{{admin help}} currently busy, can't take action. Will respond later. Please verify if this requires urgent action and remove the admin help tag afterwards, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pipamidalton, I have responded at Talk:Halik_(TV_series)#Consistent_Vandalism. For the record, here is my response, without the pings:

Hi Pipamidalton and Jusgtr. Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You may like to click here and add the following text to the bottom of the page's source code:

=== [[Halik_(TV_series)]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Halik_(TV_series)}}
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~

Thank you very much for all your work and the time invested to deal with vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to respond to this message, please do so at Talk:Halik_(TV_series)#Consistent_Vandalism. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved per Special:Diff/870520931, Special:Diff/870522482 and the protection log. Thank you for the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I thought that that was the sandbox and I was just messing around in it.Sorry that I fell in the floor and forgot the butter.-B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruh227 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruh227, I'm not sure what Wikipedia can do to satisfy the requirements pointed out in Special:Diff/874252760. All I can offer is a list of games. Have fun... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Butter ^{Merging sections: heading converted to bold text ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)}

Speaking of butter,could you get me some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruh227 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Ai, we need to sit down and have a laugh about those RAVSS deadlines. Thank you for your help, enjoy yourself while you try out RTRC and get me data. You deserve a nice treat for being a nice person. Oh yeah, just out my VSANs and am downloading a 14 tb file on a 800 dollar 20 tb hard drive that I've been keeping in the basement. Says it'll be fully downloaded in TWO WEEKS on dedicated storage based servers, whoo! I'll keep you posted, for now just rollback things via RTRC. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 05:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, you're serious about the database. :D This is amazing. Thanks and see you tomorrow! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

oh, one thing, before I forget this: I do have a condition for participating in the project: The tool's and bot's source code must be open and freely licensed at all time, GPL and/or Creative Commons by-sa 3.0 unported (which, by definition, includes 4.0 as well yet can be used on Wikipedia, which enforces 3.0). Development, or at least very recent snapshots/mirrors of the development repository, must be available on at least one public platform like GitHub with the licenses permanently active and allowing anyone to continue and build upon the project for any reason at any time, for example if you happen to abandon the project (which will hopefully never happen yet must be considered as a possibility). The underlying database may be huge first, but dumps of the bot's knowledgebase, the extracted information that is necessary to run the bot, should be provided similarly to how the WMF provides the Wikipedia dumps. I'd need a Git/GitHub link to be able to do paranoid backup forks of the bot code. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don’t know to operate Github, here are the following questions:

uhh how do I do anything uhh how do I upload Access databases uhh how do I upload things in general? I agree to your terms, but I do have one question. Is once a week enough to be considered “recently” and do I have to make it humanly readable or can it just be raw data? Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 06:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Excited for when the information downloads and I can start pulling from more information!

@Redactyll: Oh, sorry. I was blindly assuming that every programmer knows and uses GitHub. If programming is mainly done by the hired people, at least one of the programmers will likely know how to use Git, independently of the platform that you decide to use. GitHub is probably by far the most popular platform, but alternatives like BitBucket exist. SVN and Mercurial exist as alternatives to Git, but honestly, any project aiming for wide participation will likely eventually give in to the peer pressure and be present with a Git repository on GitHub. Some provide a mirror, others move their entire workflow there.

Once a week is perfectly fine, and raw data is better than a modified version that was just created for the export. It's all about re-usability, and the ability for anyone to take over the project if ever needed. In an ironic, darkly humorous manner, this is called the "bus factor". Yes, Wikipedia has an article about that.

About uploading the raw data, that's not what GitHub or Git are for. The git protocol excels at open source version control, not binary file sharing. All you'd need to provide dumps is a pure HTTP server (can be "shared hosting" with FTP upload and traffic flatrate); ideally with an own domain name.

I don't have deeper insight into the project structure, but I'd assume that someone from the team can help with all this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting until this morning to barrage with a list of questions, as they all live in different time zones. I got one to record screenshare (nice people) and I think I understand. I’ll go ahead and get that set up, but one question, I want someone external to be lunatic enough to download backups, can I email you the database weekly since GitHub wasn’t meant for that? Thnkye kindly for the help. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Redactyll, if the database doesn't exceed 100 MB (that's the limit on my side at least), feel free to send me backups with a frequency of up to "daily". I will keep at least the latest 200 MB. My e-mail address is my first name the domain name at the bottom of every sheet music you can see on User:ToBeFree. If you exceed 25 MB, you'll receive an error message from Gmail. This can be ignored; the e-mail will still be stored on my server. If your e-mail provider imposes a stricter limit than 100 MB, you can use 7-zip's "split file" feature for a 7z archive, or something similar. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If there’s an email limit of 25 mb, which is going to be surpassed in about let’s see... a day ago, would you be willing to download from a Dropbox or Onedrive or Google Drive file? That way the email step is bypassed and you can still download the full amount of data. Would that work, I’ll zip the files to make them smaller? And one last question, do you know how to work Microsoft SQL and Accees? Right now that’s where our database is being stored, I can merge if you want. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 19:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 19:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, heh. Sure, I can download from Dropbox/OneDrive/GoogleDrive as well. Let's say up to "weekly" then, to avoid making it a time-intensive procedure. About the database, I'm not a database admin; all I ever dealt with is MySQL on a tiny personal server, without digging into the database. I can store files of any type, though. For your work, just use what suits your team best. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I'll do. I'm going to email fr**@**************.de weekly with links to Google Drive that have Microsoft Access files, zipped, and encrypted via AES-256, along with a separate keyfile executable that will unencrypt the data. Starting this Monday, I'll email a GDrive file to you. Should anything happen, I also am taking monthly backups of the LACIE 126 TB ULTRA hard drive, I'll keep that in the cloud (ya probably don't want to download this unless I abandon the project which will never happen). Weekly commits will be done via repository on GitHub, and I'll go make sure that everything is all size reduced for you (short warning, unzipping the database will take some-okay, a lot of space). Thank you for storing my files on backup! It's honestly WAY CHEAPER then having it on Amazon AES, or an EC2 VPS, and gives you emergency tools. Your hard drive space will be put to good use-just uh... if I break your computer with those files the intern did it! Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 05:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 05:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoo, sorry for all of those talk page notifications (lol)! I've managed to get myself into places I shouldn't be again, first with Cluebot ANN Neural databases and now Huggle. Please download | this release of Huggle and your edits will be saved and logged. I have no idea how I convinced someone to let my bot use HG 3.4.4 information for the newest release :) Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 05:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick note @Redactyll: my first name is "tobias" not "frei" :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll

If the database doesn't contain the bot's Wikipedia password or things like that, feel free to do this in unencrypted form. If it does, no matter how much you trust me, please remove the need for encryption by moving that information into a separate configuration text file. Point 5 of the Wikimedia TOS may be relevant. As the bot currently doesn't run/exist, maybe there is no need for encryption in the first place.

About the huge dumps that are the base for building your own database, don't worry, I see no need to share these. All I was thinking about is the relatively small database that is the result of your filtering and research. Ideally, that database should not contain any sensitive information, just edits from Wikipedia and calculations based on them, licensed CC-by-sa 3.0. If it is built from Wikipedia edits, the "ShareAlike" part of Wikipedia's license makes this a requirement anyway. Now that I think about it, the Creative Commons license may even forbid imposing technical access restrictions like encryption, depending on what you do with the licensed content. Technically, I would say that providing encrypted data together with the key is not an "effective technological measure" in terms of the license, but I'm not a lawyer. I would like to receive backups that I can share with anyone asking for them, without having to worry about password safety and encryption.

Weekly e-mail on Monday and commits on GitHub sound good, thanks!

If you need a VPS to run the bot, you can get one for free from the Wikimedia Foundation. Details can be found at wikitech:Help:Cloud_Services_Introduction, wikitech:Help:Getting Started and wikitech:Portal:Cloud_VPS.

No problem, I love storing backups, as long as the size doesn't exceed a few gigabytes. Heh, don't worry, I won't carelessly unzip a large efficiently compressed file of English text.

About Huggle, I always use the latest stable release, but the version number shouldn't matter: The date of the edits is what you'd need to be filtering; ignoring all contributions that happened until today sounds like wasting potential.

Have fun and good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Heya Free! Just got my Wikimedia Toolforge request approved-and that’s a good point. Since I’m not a law nerd either, I’ll trust you on this. The reason why I want you on that nightly download was because there’s inside of the release tracking code which feeds the aww-little bot. Actually, since I have access to WMF Cloud VPS, and somehow got DaaS access on Clous, I think I can just spend their server resources on recording and logging every edit with both the rollback and Huggle tag(ssssh). I’ll implement the tag watching and logging functionality, and just expunge the data that would need to be encrypted. Tried zipping the dump-waited a few hours, then reduced it to uh... 2 TB? 😁 Thanks for feeding the bot, and that explains why my email didn’t work, lol. I appreciate it. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 18:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 18:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll, nice to hear about the approved request! About the Huggle tracking code, where in the commit history had that been introduced? Is it really a client-side thing?

Good idea with logging rollback+Huggle edits; this allows flexible filtering to be done later, possibly focusing on BLP/SPAM (too) if needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What the hell

Why even add to Wikipedia if all you're going to do is remove it :-/ Bleh. Whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.209.15 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 73.20.209.15, thank you for the message. I can understand your frustration.

Many users would like to publicize their favorite YouTube channels or internet blogs. The one in question seems to have exactly 234 subscribers. The corresponding internet blog appears to be a personal hobby blog. This is nice, and maybe they will become widely popular one day, but at the moment, your addition does not seem to be notable, and not relevant for the disambiguation lists until Wikipedia has an article about the subject.

If you would like to create an article, please read:

• Wikipedia:Your first article

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

IP confusion

I'm more than a little confused about the situation with my IP. I got messages today stating I had vandalised the Amundsen's South Pole expedition page (User talk page here). I however haven't made any such change. The last change I made was removing vandalism from the Rick Owens article (see here). I have known IP's to change but not to previously used addresses. I'm a little bit perturbed my address would change to this vandals one and would like a bit of clarification if possible about how this has happened. —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 109.180.103.161, don't worry, and thank you for clarification!

This happens every day, to many people. You appear to be using an internet provider that dynamically assigns IP addresses to its customers. After some time, usually about 24 hours or "until the router restarts", you get a new IP address. By the time you are reading this, you may already have a new one again.

On the positive side, having a dynamically assigned IP address will protect your privacy when editing Wikipedia without an account. Without your link, I would never know that you had been editing as "109.180.103.189" before getting the new IP address "109.180.103.161".

Whenever something like this happens to you, I recommend doing the following things:

• Replace all warnings with the text "This is a dynamically assigned IP address, as explained to me on [[User talk:ToBeFree]], 2018-12-22. I have been told that if this happens, I should replace all warning messages with this text. I am not the person who was meant to receive these warnings. ~~~~"
• If you have a Wikipedia account, log in and stay logged in.

You do not need an email address to create an account – all you need is a name and a password. Special:CreateAccount

If you decide to create an account, please tell me which name you've decided to use, so that I can add a "welcome" message to your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Kitten of civility

Great job handling everyday problems in a civil and helpful manner! For that, you get this cat! And... now to business. I’ve gotten the bot the bot bit on TestWiki, and I’m running a test soon. But, the real issue is that when I emailed you, I got an error message from the postmaster account. I’m wondering if there’s an alternative for file sending we could consider if I can’t fix the issue. Good progress on code is being made, should have the API scripts done by next week.

Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Redactyll.

Which name does the bot use on TestWiki?

About the e-mail, oh! That should indeed not happen. Could you forward me the error message, by copying it into the following form? Special:EmailUser/ToBeFree – ideally the whole e-mail with its header, but the content may be sufficient too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding TestWiki, oh, you mean the external site, not test.wikimedia.org. Now I understand :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Okey dokey artichokey! I'm zipping all of the files for the weekly send! I'm also going to go join you on Huggle. I just closed out of STiki and am loading up Huggle to join you! But uh, on a more important note, the bot files might take a bit to zip. There might be a delay since I didn't keep in mind zipping and compressing times that could occur. Thanks for waiting for the compressions. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 20:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC) at the time 20:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Redactyll, Merry Christmas and nice to hear that! Take all time you need, there's no deadline. "About weekly" or "almost weekly" would also be perfectly fine.

To debug the error that occured when you sent the previous message, I'd love to receive the error message you got from the postmaster account. Independently of that, by using the same form, you will be able to reach me even if we don't get the original problem fixed. I'm happily awaiting the first dump, and it is nice to see the project growing step by step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

^{(Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC))}

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey KatnissEverdeen, thank you very much! Have a nice Christmas and a Happy New Year too!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RAVSS backup sent

Sent the COMPRESSED version to you. Hope you enjoy reading the compressed databits and so forth! Finally pushed out the commit. I provided non-snarky informative comments for you. Imagine: if that's the compressed version, what the living goodness is the real version? The response to that is "something exclusively for a LACIE 128 THUNDERBOLT hard drive and VSANS." We had to run servers to make that code since it's big! Thanks for sacrificing hard drive space on your computer-and giving us a second backup. The email is completely sent, it should be sent from lu*****@lu********ey.c**. I appreciate your frontier-spirit attitude and willingness to help! And, now it's time for an unrelated sidenote. Just decided I'd go play the music pieces on your userpage, they sound really nice. Thank you once again for the third time and happy reverting and hard-drive-sacrificing! Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 22:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC) on the wonderfully granted day and time of 22:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Redactyll.

The last code comment made me smile. :)

Okay, what did I just receive... 11 e-mails, but these appear to be identical – no problem, that may even have been an issue on Wikimedia's side. I didn't know that the e-mail form allows sending 5 MB of text, but 5 million characters via a HTML form are apparently not breaking any server-side limits. For me, it's not a problem at all space-wise.

What language is that code written in, automatically generated C? How can I decompress the compressed part? There seem to be missing semicolons on some lines, while other lines do have semicolons. Is this MATLAB, perhaps? An ".m" file? There is no header, no function, I have no idea what is happening here. Which code is used to make these 8 GB? Although it's still just text, I would even use the word "compile" for that process. My interest is instead focused on the part that humans write and that has been "compiled" to this C code.

A note first: None of this is a problem; my contributions are licensed freely just as any other user's contributions, and unless you need specific actions done by me, I have no right to demand anything (not even answers) from the project or its developers. I'm just curious and hope that it is no problem to ask for clarification here, since I completely lost the overview:

1. How was the RAVSS project invented; what is the background story? Spontaneous idea, long childhood dream?
2. Is there any economical planning behind this, or is it "Pure donation that will ever be financed only by my completely independent full-time job that makes me able to invest some money for no monetary return at all"?
3. How would you describe your personal role in the project?
   I assumed "programmer doing everything alone" first. Then I learned there's a hired team, and then I – please no offense, and I may be completely wrong – received questions and answers that make it seem to me as if your role may instead be "manager with a great idea but lack of the required coding experience", which would be exactly my own position too, if I attempted to create such a huge project.
4. Which programming languages does the project use, and why?
5. Would you need to hire someone whenever there needs to be a change made to the code?
6. Are the developers creating good documentation, or is everything in their minds?
7. How would you describe the "job titles" of each hired person? An anonymous list like "2 C programmers, 1 database admin, 1 person with good Wikipedia knowledge categorizing edits to feed the database" is what I'm curious for.
8. While theoretically obvious, let me put something in a practical perspective for the next questions:
   0.1% is "one in 1000". Only one of 1000 reverts must be wrong.
   40% is "400 of 1000". Over 400 of 1000 vandalism edits must be identified as such.
1. You have access to a history of many good reverts. What you may lack to train the AI is an equally large history of explicit non-reverts. By definition, none of the non-reverts are tagged as such on Wikipedia. How do you plan to obtain high-quality non-reverts for the database?
2. Do you have a way to measure the current rate of false-positives and false-negatives? Where are these rates at the moment, when using a database of how many reverts and how many non-reverts? Is there, for example, a validation dataset that is collected and used only for verification, and never for training?
3. Do you have any way of predicting the required database size for the finished bot, and how big is that? I could imagine plotting "database size" on the x-axis of a 2-dimensional graph, with "false-positive results" and "false-negative results" on the y-axis, and interpolating these curves, but maybe there is a better way to do a prediction.
9. How many of the technical terms used in your comments have been quoted from developers, how many come from your personal overview?
10. Which of these questions required you to ask another person for details or technical explanation? Looking terms up in Google and Wikipedia doesn't count as "asking", that's not what this question is about.

And here's the best thing about these questions: Many of the answers are perfect content for creating an RAVSS information page in the Wikipedia namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m weird so let’s do this out of order.

1. Funding isn’t all me, I asked without begging 🤐 for funds, and got support from people. Some of my colleagues and family members were like “oh gosh this is cool factor 11,” running based on donations and my big big monthly donation. 2. I got the inspiration to start RAVSS from {{RAVSS SKIPPING EMOTIONAL BACKSTORY FOR READER SAFETY}}, a combination of this and seeing ClueBotNG’s weakness, if I use machine learning then I’ll be able to rectify NG’s inability for good faith edits and BLP violations as well as potentially libelous BLP content, while catching more vandalism. 3. Huh? ELEVEN EMAILS? uh... slightly off, thanks WMF. 4. The people on my team are the hired without permission Oshwah, and the hired without permission editors who assume the name “hugglers.” The officially hired people are 3 JS/Python/C##/C(insert two characters here)/Weird programming language that appears to me to have no form or anything like normal code, along with 2 data scientists, one overall nerd who does API, and one Wikitech Member, who works professionally and will help with the Mediawiki stuff. There are also volunteer helpers - defitnely not the “servant, SODA PLEASE” person. 5. (Will respond later, devs aren’t online and I need help) 6. Ah, goodness, you’re all too right. I am a low code knowledge person. My role is mainly providing oversight, shortening lunch breaks, and setting deadlines. To summarize, I am, yes, the “Manager with big ideas but limited coding experience.” 7. Let’s see if we can find a good source of good edits... it would seem weird if that big green button in Huggle did anything... or if thanked edits without the “Undo” or “Rollback” tag could be filtered... all good questions. I don’t know myself. A voice in my head told me those questions were hidden and slightly mysterious statements... but we won’t know, will we? 8. Statistics like end size will be calculated after the database collects a month of information, averaging weekly size growth for stats. 7.5 without sassy talking. My source of good non revert edits are through the logged and available records of thanked edits. Using SkyNet and Mr. Roboto technology I managed to get all the thanked edits, remove the ones marked as rollback or undo, then log the survivors as good edits. 9. We will find out false positives for the New Years dryrun on Testwiki, excited. 10. The technical documentation is there but “When process be initiate then it calls function,” apparently they don’t know how to program in detailed enough or proper English-heard it’s harder then JS to learn though. 11. I wouldn’t need to hire another developer, I can for minor things just get help from peers and 🤓 s on IRC Wikitech. 12. Oh, what programming language you ask? They code in the ultimate show off language which makes no sense to regular non weird people. They use a showoff language called Malboge and Glass or something like that. Why? uhm good question! On the matter of my glorious question responding to, if I missed a question, that’s likely. Korben Dallas should report missed questions via my notification bar if you ping me, and I’ll respond to those questions during morning and with dev assistance. Will do technical writing ASAP, and I’m sure there’s something we both don’t get about the weird fluid code blob with no spaces and weird weird things that’ll seem like a laugh soon. Over and out, Major Iceberg! P.S. on fire with the references to TFE today. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 09:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC) on the weird time of 09:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll, thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. I think I'm slowly getting an overview. To avoid confusion, I'll respond to the numbers you've used in your comment, although they do not always seem to match my original ones.

1. Okay, that sounds congenial to me. Nice to hear that, and congratulations on getting support.
2. ClueBot NG does use "machine learning", if I understand correctly. It is "trained on a dataset" according to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ClueBot_NG. About catching BLP violations, the bot would need to have a separate database for this task. Vandalism-reverts and BLP-violation-reverts should probably be separately approved tasks.
   If you are using the same technical approach that ClueBot NG does, just with a different dataset, then it may be more helpful to improve ClueBot NG's dataset than writing a new bot.
3. 
4. Ah, the Huggle users have been counted too. So this is less overwhelming than I thought. Python and C++ (or C#?) sound powerful. The "weird programming language" doesn't, see point 12. Two data scientists, okay – as long as communication works properly. A separate person for API calls, instead of the hired coders? Shouldn't the hired coders themselves be able to deal with API documentation? Ideally, the MediaWiki/Wikipedia expert should be you. The project likely has nothing to do with the depths of MediaWiki coding or extensions. Additional volunteer helpers, don't make them spoil the broth. When dealing with many editors, you likely need to enforce strict coding policies and documentation to avoid a chaos.
5. Ok, sure, although I'm not sure which question this statement was about. The numbers seem to be mixed up. But please don't fix your reply now; if you intend to do a correction, please do so in a new comment. Even if it's largely a copy of the old one.
6. All right, not a problem for me. A possible problem for the project, though. It may make you unable to act as a bot operator, especially when things go wrong and your competent help is needed. Please consider this, seriously, before making a bot approval request.
   "Someone wrote software for me and I'm going to run it without understanding what it does" would probably not be a good BRFA request.
   "I won't be able to fix errors myself" wouldn't be either.
7. That doesn't work. I've verified this using a MySQL query borrowed from a tutorial, and by asking on #wikimedia-tech. They gave me a link to phab:T51087. The "Thanks" log does not contain the exact edit ID, just the user ID. The MySQL table contains a "log_page" ID, but you can verify at Special:Redirect that this page ID always points to the user page of the thanked editor. It is not useful information for the bot.
   This seems to be an intentional privacy feature, and I do like this decision. You will need to think of something else. I guess your volunteers will be needed, and they need to get a very good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing so. After all, their decisions train a bot, so the bot will act like them. Please don't let the bot become an automated Wikipedia newbie. Being extended confirmed should be a minimum requirement for anyone with writing access to the database.
8. All right, take your time. Sounds good. But there is one statement that confuses me,

   Using SkyNet and Mr. Roboto technology I managed to get all the thanked edits, remove the ones marked as rollback or undo, then log the survivors as good edits.

   This is extremely unlikely, as described in point 7. Are you sure that you managed to get a list of thanked edits?
   Let's keep it factual, despite all the fun. A few comments above, you wrote that the latest Huggle nightly build from Petrb's website contains "tracking code" to fill the bot.^(diff) I had, surprisedly, asked for a clarification based on the open source project's commit history,^(diff) but I sadly do not seem to have received an answer so far. I am not a programming guru, but even I with my limited coding knowledge noticed that something does not seem to add up there. Unlikely technical claims do not fuel my enthusiasm, they rather confuse me about the project.
9. Instead of using Testwiki, which clearly is a skewed source of edits, you should ideally be doing this on the English Wikipedia. Instead of reverting anything, the bot should log all edits to a local text file. In later stages of the project, to prove the results to the community, you could relatively easily obtain permission to do this on a page in your userspace instead. Using the page history, the community can then verify the reaction times and accuracy of your bot.
10. That does not sound like good documentation, and can make the project fail horribly and unexpectedly at a later stage. I would consider good documentation to be the "foundation" of your bot project's "house". If the house lacks a solid foundation, it will break during further construction. If the code lacks good documentation, it will break during further development. As a manager, you may be the person who is required to enforce these standards.
11. Okay, but even for minor issues, you do need to ask for help by others who have no understanding of the code. Especially without good documentation, I see a disaster incoming. If the people at WP:BRFA have foresight, I'd expect them do deny such a bot request.
12. If your developers are using esoteric programming languages like Malbolge or Glass to create tools for the following needs:
    • Running a bot on a live website with 48,334,983 users, with extended privileges
    • Creating software that needs to be debuggable in emergencies
    • Creating software to be run by someone who can't do the debugging alone
    ...and all of this without even providing good documentation, then I'm afraid that the developers are either not taking the project seriously enough, or that they may lack the maturity or competence to be trusted with this task.

I'm not sure how this can be summarized other than "In its current state, the project is sadly prone to failure". Maybe a re-design is needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Good points you mention, true that. The huge majority is C sharp sharp, and JS/Java. Only two lines are Malboge or Glass, and those two aren’t important. I expect to have a good knowledge of code by a few months from now, I’m taking coding lessons. As for the good edits, that brings up a mild issue. I’ll think about seeing ways to get them tracked without live mirroring. The only database edits counted are Huggle edits for the revert database, and all of them are rollbackers if they use Huggle softwareso they know what they’re doing. Good idea with the local text file, that’ll really help. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 04:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

After input and thinking, I realized RAVSS is essentially ClueBot ZG (after NG) with more anti vandal power and a lower false positive, and Cluebot getting two more BFRAs for BLP violations and MOS violations. I think we should try to merge the two and get Cobi on board, this would seem like a Cluebot update, at least that’s what it feels like to me. I want your opinion and thoughts on this matter. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 07:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC) 07:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll, it hurts a bit to say that, but yes, I agree that cooperating with Cobi to improve ClueBot NG with all your nice ideas will likely be more effective, less work-intensive and more rewarding than trying to re-invent the wheel. If questions arise about Wikipedia-related details, like questions about policies and guidelines, please let me know. I'll happily try to answer them. Feel free to keep me posted about the project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 08:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey Abelmoschus Esculentus, thank you very much! Have a nice Christmas and a Happy New Year too!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Your third seasonal greeting!

3 times the Christmas cheer.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 20:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey Redactyll, thank you very much! Have a nice Christmas and a Happy New Year too!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting peer-reccomendation for CVUA acceptance

Greetings,
It’s Redactyll, and I’ve got the urge to enroll in the CVUA academy. To help my chances of my acceptance letter being accepted once I send it to my requested counter-vandalism mentor, since you’ve been my peer in counter vandalism efforts, I’m wondering if you could do a peer-reccomendation for me. I’d appreciate it, as it would likely increase my chances of acceptance heavily. Thank you in advance. Wish to see you again on Huggle 3.4.6!
Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 06:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC) 06:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This Christmas, make it a better year by not being pulled over by the category police! You’d be a perfect fit for the Wikipedian Pianists category or even the userbox version. You have been given a picocent ticket by the Cat Police for not having up to date categories! (This is a joke, just saying a new category I found that looks great for you, nobody got squat tickets.) Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 09:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC) at 09:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

^{(I made small HTML syntax fixes, feel free to undo ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC))}

Hey Redactyll, was the "cent" pun intentional? I considered it for a moment, but see Special:Diff/875442296.

Regarding the CVUA, I like the idea and would be happy to do a peer-recommendation. Note that I never cared much about the CVUA nor ever enrolled there, because I like digging through documentation and learning the rest by trial and error. I do see, however, that the CVUA is a good thing to have on Wikipedia, and that people with different learning styles will benefit from seeking a teacher there. From my personal knowledge and experience on IRC, I recommend Mz7 and Vermont (no open slots, previously "infinite" :) ) as instructors. I had a quick look at the others too. Real-life teaching experience can be very helpful, but having recently graduated or not having had the rollback flag for more than a few months would be exclusion criterions for me personally. Click the "View user groups" sidebar link on every instructor's user page to see how and when they gained which flags. Theoretically, that should not matter, but in reality, it almost always seems to do.

This message contains a ping to Mz7, who may either be silently reading and waiting, or who may choose to add a comment now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The pun wasn’t intentional, I was putting the prefix amount “pico” before the cent, to make you have to pay 1x10^-12. I’ve read through the syllabus and I know all of the stuff they will cover, but I suspect it’ll help me later to be able to join the CVUA and revert vandalism for a purpose and group. I’m thinking about the instructor, there’s one I think would be a good fit for me, who also will be my new page patroller instructor (curation toolbar is less scary then it looks). Thank you for the help, and I appreciate the assistance getting into CVUA. Thank you!
Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC) at the time of 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

^{(replaced </br> by <br>, removed newline in source)}

@Redactyll: I do know the SI prefixes. I must. To be nit-picking, "pico-cent" is probably 1×10^-14 of the base currency units.

Taking the CVUA exam definitely won't hurt. I like the idea of taking it "just to be sure" and to prove knowledge. Your account is relatively new; maybe there is a thing or two you didn't encounter yet, which they can still explain. No problem, you're welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels

Hi ToBeFree, Greetings to you. There is a proposal at Village pump(proposal) regarding Reduce number of vandalism warning levels which you might be interested to join the discussion. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Added a comment – thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajeev.gl

@Sir Sputnik: Is there any explanation regarding the following recent log entries?

2018-12-21T11:22:27 DGG (talk | contribs) protected Torry Harris Business Solutions [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated many times.) (hist) (thank)

2018-12-21T11:20:45 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Torry Harris Business Solutions (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, WP:XFD) (thank)

taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Torry_Harris_Business_Solutions ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

While the page may have been deleted and protected recently, it was created back in 2011 and went largely unnoticed in the intervening years. Also please don't edit archived spi pages. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Sir Sputnik. The "indefinite" salting and unhindered re-creation also confused me. About editing the archived page, closure and archival have literally happened within a minute from each other. Do I understand correctly that the actual message is "please don't edit closed SPI pages"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing closed cases is fine. Just don't edit the archive page. There's a good chance no one will notice your comments if you do. Bbb23 may have jumped the gun a little in archiving the case. If it comes up again in future, take the matter to the talk page of the closing or archiving clerk. Also, a bit more digging convered this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Oh, okay, thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Regarding the SPI, thank you very much for researching the deleted contributions and creating that page, and for the courtesy ping. Not what I expected when having a look at the public deletion/protection logs, but an interesting turn of events.

I'm sometimes confused about the "staleness" criterion or the definition of "evading scrutiny" when someone moves to a new account; I will need to read the documentation about that more closely again. Sometimes, it seems clear to me that someone is starting with a new account years after their last disruptive behavior, and that they are just coming back to continue what they had been warned about before. In such cases, there is no checkuser data, but it would seem counter-intuitive to me that one can do the same thing once every 90 days, always dodging a permanent ban by using a new account each time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The word stale can be a little ambiguous at SPI. The 90 limit makes a case stale for CheckUser purposes, but not more generally. A case is stale for administrative purposes if so much time has past that a block would fail WP:BLOCKP, or that an effective behavioural investigation is impossible. Where to draw that line is of course subjective. I hope that clears things up a bit. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

if you want to know why I did something, the best way to find out is to ask me:

this was a borderline situation for protection, and I hesitated a while before I placed it, but it was clear that an attempt would be repeatedly made to create a promotional article. the protection does not interfere with the only plausible way to make a proper article, which is to go through draft space. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year TBF!

Happy New Year!

Hello ToBeFree: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hey Abelmoschus Esculentus, Happy New Year again to you too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi ToBeFree. Apart from adding your name to the list of active AfC reviewers, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group as this may assist you significantly. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Lourdes 04:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's a nice surprise. I will keep these points in mind. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-02

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

Tech News writers, editors and translators wish you a pleasant 2019 year.

Recent changes

• RelatedSites extension has been undeployed. It was used to create interwiki links on Wikivoyage, now handled by Wikidata. [167]
• MediaWiki logstash logging is moving to a new infrastructure. This is an ongoing deployment. [168]
• codesearch.wmflabs.org has been updated, with new and updated repositories and a new search options for code. [169]
• On several wikis, an account named "Edit filter" has been created on December 17 to perform some technical maintenance on AbuseFilter. This account has sysop rights but it's a system user and no human can use it. The account already existed on wikis where AbuseFilter can perform blocks, which are issued using this account. See T212268 for more information and future plans.

Problems

• In AbuseFilter, the "Throttle" action takes three parameters: count, period and groups. They must now strictly respect the requirements listed on mediawiki.org. A list of broken filters is on Phabricator. If you're familiar with AbuseFilter, please take a look and fix them. [170]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from January 9. It will be on all wikis from January 10 (calendar).

Meetings

• Search Platform Office Hours is rescheduled to January 9. Check the details for time and date.

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

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Shiki Novel Page

Hi! So I recently made a few changes to the Shiki Novel Wiki Page. Looks like I haven't put edit summary on my edits. I deeply apologise if it looked like I had bad intentions. I just wanted to fix up some information that isn't completely true and to add some information that I see as important but wasn't put in. As for the main picture change I did, I think that Megumi Shimizu's picture would be way more appealing as the front pic of the whole page rather than the picture of Natsuno Yuuki. The background is pretty bland and the colors themself are pretty boring while the Vol Cover picture with Megumi is a lot more appealing and interesting. As I said I had no bad intentions. Just wanted to fix up some stuff to better (in my opinion). I felt like the change of the image would mean a lot as people probably come across Shiki in their recommendations but give up after they see a pretty boring cover picture, so some cool pink haired girl in my opinion would bring more eyes to this masterpiece! I feel like everyone who likes stuff with a deep message behind it should check Shiki out or even read the novel! One thing I noticed was that much info was rather true for the anime addaptation but I feel like there should also be info added for the novel (actual story). Please could you bring my edits back? ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megumishimizuwu (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Megumishimizuwu, nice to meet you.

I only made one edit: Special:Diff/876023712. I am not involved in the rest of the discussion.

You may like to have a look at the "history" of the article, to see who made which changes. To discuss these changes, please create a new section at Talk:Shiki (novel series). After explaining your suggested changes, feel free to invite the involved editor(s) to the discussion. You can do so by adding a message like
Hi, please see [[Talk:Shiki (novel series)]]. Thanks! ~~~~
on the users' talk pages.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by HowDidIThinkOfMyUsername

My little added text doesn't have a source except me. So I did not know what to say so I didn't say anything. Sorry for the mistake will not happen again.-HowDidIThinkOfMyUsername — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowDidIThinkOfMyUsername (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi HowDidIThinkOfMyUsername, my message was not accurate. What I should have written instead: The edit at Special:Diff/877439444 does not seem to be relevant to the article. You wrote "off topic", acknowledging this, so I think you know what I mean. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok ToBeFree, sorry for the trouble. HowDidIThinkOfMyUsername (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Feel free to experiment further in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice.

Hi ToBeFree,

I really appreciate your advice. I am planning on rebuilding the article on Zev Siegl in a userspace draft. Then do I submit it to one of the editors on the list you sent me?

There is one thing that is blatantly incorrect about the former article that would be an easy fix. Could you change Zev's birthplace back to Detroit, Michigan? He was born there and is a proud Detroiter.

Thank you so much for your help. I am just getting started on this and figured I was going to flop on my first try.

-Ang OLeary (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ang OLeary, you're welcome, and thank you very much for taking the time to improve the article.

I am sorry for not noticing that there was wrong, unsourced information in the article version that I restored. I have now taken a closer look at the birthplace claim and have removed it per Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Please let me know whenever you encounter such incorrect information again, or feel free to remove (not replace!) such information yourself. (Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects)

About submitting the finished draft: When the draft is finished, I would recommend creating a new section at Talk:Zev Siegl with the following content:

{{Edit request}} Please see [[User:Ang OLeary/sandbox/Zev Siegl]] for a replacement suggestion. My connection to the article subject is [...] ~~~~

Enjoy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Queerie

Helpful links relevant to this discussion

• Chaz Jankel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Catharina Hemberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.112.231.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/877244904
• Special:Diff/877244213
• Special:Diff/875822597/877144729

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

message 1

^{Heading added, sections merged ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)}

Dear ToBeFree!

What is my "four tildes" that I should sign with? I am all new to using Wikipedia beyond looking for and reading all the wonderful information here.

I saw your message, as follows to me: "Hello, I'm ToBeFree. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Special:Diff/877244904, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so Arjayay has correctly removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)"

THANK YOU for responding to me. Where do I write my facts as "reliable source"? I have marriage certificates, divorce certificate (decree nisi) and our sons Birth certificate. Are they valid as proof? I noticed last night that on my ex husband´s page "Chaz Jankel", (with whom I am on very friendly terms with since forever) he had missed out on the right date when he moved to the US (Los Angeles), which was 1988 not 1986. I know this because we moved together and I was still in college in London in 1986...and he was working on his last album in his studio in London at the time.

I saw that Chaz had missed to mention his first marriage and our son, I think it is important for both his sons to be shown respect and to be honoured by them being mentioned in the text.

Maybe you think I neesd to bring this up with Chaz instead? If it is something which is against Wikipedia rules? This is what I wrote, which was taken away by signature Arjayay: I added the facts in the same way Chaz had written about his current wife and second son:

Jankel met his first wife Catharina Hemberg in Spain 1985. They moved to the US in 1988. In 1990 they got married and Jankel´s first son Tao Hemberg Jankel was born. Chaz and Catharina got divorced in 1993Elaine O'Halloran on the set of the 1989 film The Rachel Papers where she was assistant editor. The couple have a son Lewis Shay Jankel (b. 1993), a DJ, record producer, singer and songwriter who uses the stage name Shift K3Y. Jankel's sister Annabel Jankel is a film and TV director.

Thank you for coming back to me when you can, ToBeFree! Love your signature, by the way. Best wishes! Catharina Hemberg

Hi Catharina Hemberg, about the four tildes: By adding "~~~~" at the end of your message, it will automatically be signed. About the article, please see below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Queerie, continued...

Hello again, ToBeFree! I noticed I had copied in the wrong text, speaking of the text that I added to the beginning of Chaz Jankels text on "Personal Life".

Jankel met his first wife Catharina Hemberg in Spain 1985. They moved to the US in 1988. In 1990 they got married and Jankel´s first son Tao Hemberg Jankel was born. Chaz and Catharina got divorced in 1993. Jankel met his current wife Elaine O'Halloran on the set of the 1989 film The Rachel Papers where she was assistant editor. The couple also have a son Lewis Shay Jankel (b. 1993), a DJ, record producer, singer and songwriter who uses the stage name Shift K3Y. Jankel's sister Annabel Jankel is a film and TV director.

Do you find my added text is against the Wikipedia rules? Or is it just proof that is needed, of the documents; Marriage certificate, Divorce certificate (decree nisi) and Birth certificate of our son?

Looking forward to hear from you in order to learn more of Wikipedia´s rules. Best, Catharina Hemberg

Hi Catharina Hemberg, nice to meet you.

To meet Wikipedia's requirement of Verifiability, when adding these statements, you would need to add a link to published, (and ideally: independent, secondary) sources for these additions. If there are no published secondary sources about this, a verification published by Chaz Jankel on his own website would be needed. Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid self-published sources

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Queerie, continued... Part 3

Thanks so much for your reply, ToBeFree! I checked the references to the information in Chaz Jankel´s bio. There is no mention of his second son (Lewis Shay Jankel) in any of the referencies given. So does that mean att the person who the portrait on Wikipedia is about - may add facts without any reference to it? I checked up the reference of "Billboard"´s Biography, and I could not find the information to which this source of reference is refered. Could it have been there in the past, and Wikipedia doesn´t check if it´s still valid, or how does it work? Can the portrait-person choose to share facts about his/her life while living, without having to give a source for outside proof? I checked the link you posted in your reply about Wikipedias rules on Biographies but I did not the clearity I was looking for. I totally understand there must be a watch out for tabloid gossip and the likes, but when it comes to FACTS, such as Births (and Deaths) family members with documented proof..? Hope you will have time today to reply back to me. Now I´m going to end this message right, like you showed me how it´s done. Best! Catharina Hemberg "Catharina Hemberg (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)"

Hi Catharina Hemberg, you're welcome. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia.

I have added a few links above this discussion, for reference. I hope this is useful when looking for a specific edit; feel free to add links that may be relevant too.

The citations in the article have been made in August 2016, and the websites have changed since. I found the following copy in the Internet Archive:

• "Shift K3Y - Biography | Billboard". web.archive.org. 2016-09-24. Retrieved 2019-01-08.

This may not be a reliable source, however, depending on where that text comes from. It is signed with "~ Andy Kellman, Rovi". If the information is wrong, please remove it from the article. Removing wrong information is okay, as explained at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects, for example. Adding new information, however, requires a reliable, published source. Wikipedia does not collect private, primary sources. There is no way for "official documents" to be sent privately to some sort of higher Wikipedia authority for "verification" of article statements. This is not how Wikipedia verifies article information.

A side effect of the strict verifiability policy is that it also filters out information that is not considered to be relevant by any independent source nor the article subject themselves. This may be disappointing, but is often a good thing to keep articles neutral and factual.

If you know of any published, reliable sources that allow Wikipedia's readers to verify your proposed addition, please let us know by creating a new section at Talk:Chaz Jankel. You may also, citing the same policy that I did before, remove incorrect information from the article. If you see correct information that lacks a source, it would be helpful to add {{citation needed}} at the end of each such statement. Per WP:POINT, please take care not to remove correct information just because your proposed addition was declined. While theoretically based on policy, going too far in this regard could seem to be disruptive, at least if you personally know that the removed statements are true.

Please also note that I am just one of many Wikipedia editors, and it may be helpful to discuss this at Talk:Chaz Jankel too. To link to our previous discussion, you can use the following code:

Previous discussion: [[User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 1#Queerie]]

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree

...for your reply and the information. :-) Catharina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.231.68 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catharina, you're welcome! If any new questions arise, feel free to message me at any time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

concerning my cb slang edit

List of CB slang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

^{Pagelinks added for my archive; I will soon think of a better way of adding the pagelinks in the future. Maybe a nice box or something like that. Signature of the comment moved below its text; I hope this is okay. Feel free to undo. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)}

---

I believe I have now made the edit properly, please advise.

Thank you for your input and information :)

Quizmaster Z (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Quizmaster Z, you're welcome, and thank you very much for taking the time to add new information and a reference for it.

Ideally, the source should probably not be referring to a TV show, but instead independently to real-world usage. I also am afraid that a blog about an entirely different topic may be a source of questionable reliability; the blog author possibly also only got their information from a TV show. A very good source to cite would be a renowned newspaper or an encyclopedia article, unless the article/entry is about the TV show.

That said, however, I am of course very happy about seeing a reference at all in that article. The list appears to be full of original research, and someone has already put an orange warning tag above it to explain the problem. If you are familiar with the article topic, you may like to help improving it further. Any help is very welcome, even if it is just fixing a typo. Thank you for your improvement, and welcome to Wikipedia! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Restore

You already message on my talk page,thanks for that, how to restore the deleted(tables) work on 2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC))

Hi Mr.Mani Raj Paul. I see that you have already restored a copy of the tables on Talk:2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League, and have nicely invited the other participants to the discussion. I would now recommend:

• Keeping discussion to Talk:2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League, and discussing there only.
• Not continuing to have personal arguments on user talk pages, especially not at User talk:A Simple Human.
• Not editing the article directly, until consensus has been reached on the talk page.
• Reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution carefully, then deciding, based on that information, how to continue.

I hope this helps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-03

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

Recent changes

• You can now use Google Translate in the content translation tool. [171][172]
• You can now add captions to files on Commons. Captions are short descriptions of the file. They can be translated to all languages we use. They can't use wikitext markup.
• Earlier a quoted HTML attribute had to be followed by a space. Now it doesn't. This means that some pages could look different when you save them even if you didn't edit that part of the text. [173][174]
• Templates with could not show the difference between the live template and the sandbox version when they were tested. This has now been fixed. has a new wrapper parameter now. You can use it for selectors like .mw-parser-output <wrapper parameter value> <selector from CSS page>. [175]

Problems

• When you see an edit in the recent changes feed or in the history of a page some of them have tags. Some tags are added automatically. You can also add tags manually. Tags for edits that have been added manually can be edited. This didn't work for a little while. This has now been fixed. [176]

Changes later this week

• You can move files from your wiki to Wikimedia Commons and keep the file history with the new FileExporter. It will be a beta feature on all wikis from 16 January. If you want to test it you activate it and check your wiki's configuration file.
• Users who could cause more damage to the wikis if someone took over their account have to have more secure passwords. This includes administrators and other user groups. They can't use passwords that are in a list of common passwords. Accounts with common passwords are easy to take over. The list of common passwords was made longer a few weeks ago and has a different error message. Some user groups have been added to those who can't use common passwords. This is to protect all accounts with user rights that could cause damage. [177]
• The AbuseFilter variable minor_edit has been removed. It was deprecated in 2016. Now you can't use it. You can fix the filters using it. You can find them if you use the search bar on Special:AbuseFilter.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 15

17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by Savvysasa

Hi ToBeFree,

I'd love your help in helping me update the Amethod Public Schools wikipedia page. I was contacted because a lot of the information is incorrect, but we of course want to be very objective and adhere to Wikipedia standards. Could you help me in reviewing our content below?

Edited by ToBeFree: Text removed: Copied from school's website: Promotional and seems to be a copyright violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvysasa (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Savvysasa, I don't review advertisements. Non-promotional improvement suggestions, written in your own words, are welcome on the article's talk page. Regarding the incorrect information, I have noticed that and removed it already, I hope. Please see the following edits:

• Special:Diff/861942977
• Special:Diff/864231303
• Special:Diff/869079692
• Special:PermanentLink/878440772
• Special:Diff/878437728

If you would like to make further improvements, please carefully review Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. That page also contains instructions on removing libellous material from the article, and explains how to challenge non-neutral statements. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

move citation

this is the guy who added the thing that you removed from the geico article. thanks for the citation, but put it at the end of the sentence instead, thanks! P.S.: USE THIS FOR THE CITATION:"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZazbQ8qIpM". CHECK IT OUT AFTER YOU ADD THAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done

Hi 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353, thank you very much for taking the time to search for a citation. However, this does not appear to be a reliable source. As it seems to be a third party compilation of the company's advertisements, it may even be a copyright violation. I can not include that as a reference. Could you please provide, for example, a renowned newspaper's article that proves that the campaign is "notable for the creation of the 'Maxwell the Pig' commercials", as written in Special:Diff/878426804? Or is this just your original research? In the latter case, please remove the original research statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

move citation 2

let me know if you added it and watched it. tell me what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I enjoyed watching the first few minutes, but that does not imply reliability of the source. Thanks for the tip anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

copyright

hey there, thanks for letting me know, did you watch the video, and plus, I did not see the copyright violation coming. but do you have any trustworthy sources that you can suggest for me? if you do, please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this: "https://www.adweek.com/creativity/when-pigs-fly-geico-brings-back-maxwell-airplane-ad-146197/". WEE! WEE! WEEEEEEEEEEE! remember? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2604:6000:130F:47A1:7D6F:9135:7C95:1353, do you have access to the Adweek article? I only get "This premium content is reserved for Adweek Pro subscribers."

That's not necessarily a reason against using the source, and it may be a good source, but I have no way to verify this myself. Feel free to improve the article further, possibly using that article as a source. The "Cite" button of the visual editor can be very helpful. If you encounter technical problems or have policy-related questions, feel free to ask me at any time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

hello

hey do you remember me?im Bruh227!i forgot my password for it.could you go get it for me?and also i really need that butter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruh228 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bruh228, are you here to build an encyclopedia? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Italic title

Many thanks for ansering my question, I sould have made it clear I only want to italicise part of the title as in a ship's name, eg. TSMV Brading. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Murgatroyd49, you're welcome. In this case, I'd recommend using a magic word, "DISPLAYTITLE" directly: {{DISPLAYTITLE:TSMV ''Brading''}} ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Murgatroyd49, one update: {{Infobox ship begin}} does this automatically for you. Example: HMS Victoria (1859). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I've now discovered that the original article title is of the form TSMV < i >Brading< /i >, which doesn't work of course, so I suspect I will have to Move the article to a new name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Murgatroyd49, the article name is fine and doesn't require moving -- but I found a solution. Check again; see Special:Diff/878610424 for the change. Note that the italicized title does not appear on the "Diff" page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha! that seems to do it, many thanks. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally, it should work by default. The default italicization seems to happen at Module:WPSHIPS utilities. It wouldn't surprise me if the complex module code had a bug. By using the parameter, we're now overriding the module's decision. You're welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Be careful with Huggle

that edit was not page blanking, but not adhering to neutral point of view. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jannik Schwaß, please see Special:Diff/878919199, Special:Diff/878919147 and Special:Diff/878919262, all of which happened independently of, and before, your message. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Uhm.. Editing with mobile devices is so slow... Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you and great work on thinking about simplifying the page protection instructions! Tom (LT) (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tom (LT), thank you very much for the barnstar, and for being the first supporter of the idea. Without your initial strong support, I might have given up.

My stereotype of a bureaucratic process that slowly lost its eye for the needs of newcomers got an ironic affirmation when I was told to "just install WP:TW".^[1] It was very refreshing to hear that others had difficulties to use the page before gaining Twinkle access, too. We can't expect people to become autoconfirmed before giving them the ability to call for help. In urgent cases of vandalism, it can often be IP editors who happen to notice the problem first. Once, I almost told someone to use WP:RFPP for their report. After having a look at the unnecessarily complicated instructions there, I decided to do most of the work for them instead.

As the work is not done yet, I won't add the barnstar to my page yet. That will be a nice reward at the end. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for simplifying a second page

If I may request your attention on another page that is VERY confusing to read, that would be thinking about how WP:TfD main page and instructions could be simplified. They sure need it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT), it is an honor for me to receive this request. I sadly have no TfD experience, but I agree that the instructions are... let's say "extremely detailed".

One of the main arguments for the WP:RFPP changes was the usage frequency by new and unregistered editors. Without having searched for detailled statistics, I'd expect the audience of RFPP to be noticeably different from the audience of TFD. The former is a central noticeboard for requesting administrator attention; by design, it serves all non-administrators and is clerked by administrators. The latter is a deletion discussion venue that requires deep knowledge and experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I guess that many TFD participants are administrators or extended confirmed users. TFD may be even less appealing to newcomers than AFD, because it requires technical knowledge about templates in addition to the already-complex deletion policy and namespace guidelines. There is also little reason for a brand-new editor to nominate a template for a 7-day deletion discussion. IP editors can't create new pages anyway, so the non-Twinkle audience consists entirely of editors who have joined the encyclopedia less than 4 days / 10 edits ago. While IP editors can have a lot of experience, new accounts are likely to be used by actual newcomers.

Vandalism, spam and other disruptive content can often be speedily deleted, independently of the namespace it happened in. Any template deletion that is not covered by the speedy deletion criteria likely requires knowledge that a 4-day old editor does not have nor need.

That all said, of course simplifying instructions is a good idea. Even the most experienced users could profit from better instructions. But in this specific case, I'm afraid that any attempt by me personally to "improve" the TfD guidelines would just result in disimprovement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: I see that TfD does not use per-template subpages, so my IP argument above is invalid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-04

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

Tech News

• Some people did not get last week's issue of Tech News. This was because of a problem with MassMessage. If you did not get last week's issue, you can read it on Meta. [178]

Recent changes

• The content translation tool can now use version 2 as the default version for users who turned on the beta feature. For example it adds the tracking category Pages with unreviewed translations to translations that might have used machine translations without fixing the problems. This is so others can find them. You can find this category in Special:TrackingCategories on Wikipedias.
• https://mediawiki2latex-large.wmflabs.org can now convert collects of up to 800 pages to PDF, EPUB or ODT. Previously this was 200 pages.

Problems

• When a template was edited with the visual editor, it would sometimes put all information on one line. This makes it difficult to read for editors who use the wikitext editor. It also makes it more difficult to see what happened in a diff. This problem affected edits made between 8 and 17 January and is now fixed. [179]
• MassMessage is used to post a message to many pages. It has not been working reliably. Some messages have not been posted to everyone. [180][181]
• Because of a database problem that had to be fixed immediately you could not edit most wikis for a couple of minutes on 17 January (UTC). This has now been fixed. [182]

Changes later this week

• You will be able to use template styles in the Module namespace. [183]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 January. It will be on all wikis from 24 January (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by 69.65.90.61

^{Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)}

Please read this article. This is where I got all that info from! The Man in the High Castle (TV series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.90.61 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 69.65.90.61, thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by 74.134.82.165

^{Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)}

Excuse me, but how can u edit things so fast? PLus, it was grusome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.82.165 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 74.134.82.165, I use Huggle to review recent changes to Wikipedia articles. I agree that the Apollo 1 incident seems to have been gruesome, but that is just our opinion. The word "gruesome" is not neutral enough to be used like this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

added citation

hello,its the guy who you were talking with about the geico article. I added the newspaper citation about Maxwell, but I don't know how to remove that "citation needed" thing. could you help me remove that? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:9DC6:FEBF:2BC8:AC54 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2604:6000:130F:47A1:9DC6:FEBF:2BC8:AC54, nice to meet you again. Thank you for adding the reference! I have now removed the "citation needed" tag. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130F:47A1:9DC6:FEBF:2BC8:AC54 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-05

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 servers use HHVM to run the PHP code. They are going to use PHP7 and stop using HHVM. You can test PHP7 with a new beta feature. That way you can help find and report problems.

Problems

• When someone moves a page to a name that already exists that page that had the name the article is moved to is deleted. For a couple of months this didn't always work. Some users saw an error message instead. This has now been fixed. [184]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 30 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Apparently I messed it up even worse than I thought. Now there is no ISIS (goddess) page! Could you fix that for me? It's all very confusing! Libertarianmoderate (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Libertarianmoderate, don't worry. I think it is fixed now.

Because the move is potentially controversial (I personally would not move the page!), please see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. This page contains instructions on starting a move discussion on Talk:Isis, if you really think that this needs to be done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: Libertarianmoderate, please see Talk:Isis/Archive_1#Requested_move_19_August_2016. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Friends List

Thanks for your help. I have a surprise waiting for you on my homepage. :-) Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

phew

I think [185] is probably due for a block - or has either no english, or comprehension - JarrahTree 09:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree, good point. I initially found them when looking for the person who added Google Ads javascript code to the bottom of WP:RFPP. I have now created Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rakesh06455. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

I know you didn't mean any harm with your comment at Libertarianmoderate's user talk, but I would gently suggest that you read WP:BEANS. If you say something like that, it might give them the idea to do it. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey 331dot, thank you for the reminder. I do know that essay.

I personally would be honestly surprised if my specific comment actually had that effect on this specific user, but I do see that it is generally not a good idea to mention further possibilities of disruption to a blocked user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I would stress I know you didn't mean anything by it- and if it had been any other suggestion I wouldn't have said anything. I just don't want to mess around. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article copyright permission confirmation

^{Heading added, spaces at beginning of lines removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)}

"I was helping with Andrew Andraos Wikipedia page and I accept the merger with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Andraos" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GarnerTracee subst:Uw-c&pmove|Draft:Andrew Andraos - Composer, Arranger, Music Producer|to=Draft:Andrew Andraos}}

I agree. Thank you GarnerTracee (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I helped with the Andrew Andraos Wikipedia page and I accept the merger with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Andraos" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GarnerTracee

Thank you.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GarnerTracee (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll copy this to the draft. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Personal Information

Hi, When dealing with a recent help request, you left someone's email available on the page. I've removed it for you and alerted the oversight team. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1, thanks. Could I please have a link to the page? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:32.210.93.123&action=history, I didn't post it as this is public so I wanted to protect their Information. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1, thanks again, and good catch. The whole request does indeed look pretty accidental; I assume that the user expected to be submitting a private help request. I should have noticed and removed that in my edit, sorry. Regarding the link, I think as there is no suppressible information left on the page, having the link here doesn't hurt. It helps me to learn from the error, though. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Yes, that's why I didn't post it here immediately as Oversight was being slow to respond this morning so I was happy to give it once they had done their work. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Messages by Rzb1967

^{Sections merged. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)}

Message 1

^{Heading added, spaces at the beginning of the second line removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)}

It took me many months to convince the people involved in building the new Catholic Cathedral that they have been using the wrong dates for the resurrection. I believe it was 2012 when Pope Benedict told the world that Dennis the small gave the world the wrong dates for birth and resurrection. What the builders of the Cathedral wanted was to have a sky scape over the arc showing the position of the stars, moon, etc. on the night of the resurrection. It probably would be easier to send you my paper on this subject. You need to accept and learn the Jewishness of God's Word. If you do a search on "WRAL New Special: The Cathedral" you will see the news report using 30 AD as the year of the resurrection and not 33 AD which they have used for approximately 1500 years.

?Rzb1967 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rzb1967, your edit to Date of birth of Jesus appears to have introduced original research. Please provide a published, reliable, secondary source for these statements. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Luke I

^{Long heading converted to bold text below, heading added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)}

Luke I describes the exact date of the Messiah's birth to see this you must understand the Hebrew culture. The Messiah was born in the Hebrew Biblical year 3756, the first day of Sukkot (Tshrei 15 and given his name on the eighth day of Sukkot) not to be confused with the Hebrew civil calendar which has been used since the time in exile in Babylon. The Messiah was sacrificed in the year 3790 at the age of 33 and 6 months on Nisan 14 and rose Nisan 18. If you want details, let me know

I am new to this process, so no doubt I have made errors in what I have done. I am trying to understand if I say the source for the information is God's Word as to why this is not a valid source? The worksheet I submitted is a simplified day by day account of events that determine the day of the Messiah's birth. The word Messiah has many forms in different languages. A few of the examples are Yeshua, Christ, Son of Man, Jesus, First Fruits, etc., some describe approximately 160 names referring to our Savior.

Any direction you can give would be well received.

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzb1967 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rzb1967, although considered to be "God's Word" by some people, the Bible is very unlikely to be a reliable source for most Wikipedia statements. A few editors have discussed this problem at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bible_as_a_reliable_source. If you fundamentally disagree with this, a good place to re-start a discussion can be Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, but not my talk page. I have no authority to accept or decline this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing an article with COI

Hi ToBeFree,

Thank you for answering my questions in the Freenode IRC. It has come to my attention that I have edited an article for which I have a conflict of interest. I am not the original poster of the article (BTCPay Server). Therefore, I do not believe I can revert the pending article submittal to address this. In addition, I have reviewed your suggested article: 'Userspace Draft' which I do not think is appropriate since I am not the original author of the article, nor do I intend to author a majority of the article. My intent was mainly formatting and references. I believe the following is the course of action I should take, in order of my preference.

1. ToBeFree, can you please review my changes, to verify they are neutral and appropriate contributions for a person with a COI? 2. If not, should I revert my contributions and place them in the talk page? It appears to me that COI users should contribute to the talk pages, rather than a COI article.

Thank you for your help, Britttttk (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC) (britttttk)

Hi Britttttk, nice to meet you.

The situation is less dramatic than it may sound at first. The most important thing is to understand and disclose the conflict of interest. Now that other editors, and you yourself, are aware of the potential issue, it will be much easier to collaborate productively. Together with the community, it can be possible, even with a conflict of interest, to provide helpful, policy-compliant contributions to Wikipedia. I personally would avoid trying, but this is your personal decision to make. Only you know how strong the conflict is, and if it negatively affects your ability to adhere to Wikipedia's core content policies.

If the name of a page starts with "Draft:", like Draft:BTCPay, then it is a so-called community draft. Contrary to "userspace" drafts, community drafts are meant to be freely edited by all community members. Editing the draft is not a problem by itself, and editing a draft in general is less problematic than editing a "normal" article with a conflict of interest.

The problem that led to declination of the draft so far is a lack of verifiable notability. Wikipedia has a nice essay about this, called "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability".

If you sincerly believe that the article subject, BTCPay Server, qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and if you have fixed the article to allow readers to verify this, then you may ask for a detailled review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button above the draft. You may do this even although you have not created the draft in the first place. The review is about the article content: For the review, it honestly does not matter who wrote or submitted it.

If the result of the second review is unchanged, you may need to consider giving up at that point, and waiting for the topic to become notable enough. While there is no fixed limit on re-submissions, a second declination would be the point at which I, if I had a conflict of interest, would notice that the COI affects me too much.

Cryptocurrencies are an extremely delicate topic on Wikipedia. While we encourage you to be bold, starting with a COI article about cryptocurrencies is about the most dangerous introduction to this project that one can choose. It is extremely hard to avoid violating policies in your situation, and I personally would choose to avoid that minefield. Nevertheless, I do wish you luck, I do thank you for your contributions, for being open about the COI, for asking questions when things are unclear, and for your kind understanding. If there are any questions left, the IRC channel may be the best place to get quick responses from experienced editors. Also, you are always free to add any further questions to my talk page, whenever you like to. I'll do my best to answer them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: Britttttk, I see, the article has already been re-submitted. That's fine, you do not need to (and maybe shouldn't) undo your changes. Feel free to continue improving the article while waiting for the review. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-06

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

• It was easy to untick a box by accident in Special:Preferences. This will now be fixed. [186]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 February. It will be on all wikis from 7 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Farrer edits

Are you able to specify which parts of my edit were deemed to be original research? They're all direct quotes and tweets from him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.19.145 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi 86.164.19.145, thanks for asking.

Even if Paul Farrer wrote these messages himself, your personal interpretation of his messages appears to be original research. Also, including these statements in such a short article would probably be giving them undue weight. And to make matters worse, the Twitter account is not even officially verified to be his. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry!

I am sorry do that, just misclick. Hope you forgive me Hhkohh (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Hhkohh, no worries, thank you for the clarification message! I was a bit surprised, but that explains it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07

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

Recent changes

• You can use the ambox CSS class to show page issues to mobile readers. When you use ambox there are classes you can use.

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Message by Eddiehimself

I'm not engaging in an edit war. Your bot software caught me typing something naughty and I removed it so it would be legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiehimself (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eddiehimself: I'm not a bot, I manually undid your uncivil edit. If you know in advance that a revert will be controversial, you should discuss it on the talk page. That said, my revert was actually about your HTML comment, and I'm neutral regarding the other discussion. If you feel that another editor is harassing you, please see Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment. Now that the issue has escalated to WP:ANI#Eddiehimself, you'll need to explain the situation there, calmly, and in a way that allows the other editor to explain their point of view as well. Good luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm afraid you'll need to explain the situation on your talk page instead. Please take your time; a hasty response would neither help you nor anyone else. It can help to sleep one night before responding, especially if you instinctively disagree with this tip. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A link I've added to Vladimir Kotelnikov's wiki site

Greetings,

I am a grandson of Professor Vladimir A. Kotelnikov. We have put together the family archive of Prof. Kotelnikov on web site http://vakotelnikov.ru, which I wanted to link from the wikipedia page,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kotelnikov.

You have removed the link. Would you mind adding the link please?

Thank you, Alexei Kotelnikov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.238.153 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexei Kotelnikov, thank you very much for your kind message.

Regarding the website link, I have two concerns:

• If the article lacks information, adding that information to the article would be much more helpful than a link.
• The website does not have any kind of authority or official status; anyone can create a memorial page.

If you own the copyright of the photos on the website, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons and add them to commons:Category:Vladimir_Kotelnikov. You may only upload photos that you have created yourself. If someone else has created the photos, please tell them to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons. If Vladimir A. Kotelnikov has created the photos, his heirs can upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons. If an unknown photographer has created the photos, we can only accept them if the copyright has expired (see commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia).

I think that uploading the photos to Wikimedia Commons and adding information to the article will be more helpful than adding the link. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for answering my query so quickly, ToBeFree. Really appreciate it. Westwind175 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Westwind175, you're welcome! Feel free to use {{Help me}} again whenever there's something unclear with editing Wikipedia. It is monitored around the clock by volunteers. If you think that in a specific case, personal help is more useful, you can also always directly reach me here on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Message by 2604:2000:C653:AD00:E40D:82C6:AC81:DE19|2604:2000:C653:AD00:E40D:82C6:AC81:DE19

Was El Mozote *not* a massive human rights violation/atrocity?

Did Elliot Abrams *not* seek to discredit eyewitness accounts from civilians who miraculously survived the massacre during Senate hearings, thus, de facto condoning it and other instances of US-trained paramilitary human rights violations?

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C653:AD00:E40D:82C6:AC81:DE19 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2604:2000:C653:AD00:E40D:82C6:AC81:DE19|2604:2000:C653:AD00:E40D:82C6:AC81:DE19, I won't judge, and Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Also, "Elliott Abrams" seems to refer to a living person, so Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living persons would at least require you to provide a reliable source that directly supports the statement. Personal, subjective interpretation of the sources must be avoided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Messages by EditorInChief260

Thanks EditorInChief260 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just doing an experiment EditorInChief260 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize EditorInChief260 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations

I'm having trouble understanding how to add citations. I tried to edit an article for the class I'm currently taking but it gets taken off since I don't add citations. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaugeri26 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amaugeri26, there is a "Cite" link above the editor, when editing a page. However, not only citations are necessary; the text also needs to be written in a neutral tone. "one of the most famous surgeons", for example, seems to be unnecessary puffery. A similar discussion has recently happened at Talk:Christopher Nolan. You may like to have a look at that talk page, to see potential issues that have been discussed there. Creating a new section on an article's talk page is always a nice alternative to editing the article directly, especially when you notice that others disagree with previous, similar edits. If there are questions left, feel free to ask again. Good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Soal-The divine energy that powers all of earths creations. The electicity that lives within all life. The energy that powers the human soul.

There is no one to cite because its my personal belief. When i searched soal, only some random guys name came up. Is there a page that is simply "soal"? Christopherberryusa (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Christopherberryusa, Wikipedia requires article statements to be verifiable. If there are no sources and something is only your personal belief, you are absolutely welcome to believe whatever you personally like, but Wikipedia can not have an article about it. Also see: WP:42. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia quit being open to new ideas and beliefs? Shame on you! take the credit, its not important. Ideas are for sharing not to mention this idea could possibly help someone on their pursuit to understand god as much as it has helped me. Furthermore, Soal has NO DEFINITION, positivity fueled my desire to publish it on your site.Christopherberryusa (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Christopherberryusa, Wikipedia's policy to provide only verifiable information is one of the core content policies and has been established in 2003. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Its your right to be closed minded, though its a foul stance to take in life. Christopherberryusa (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The following sentence had originally been added to the above message. I have moved it, chronologically, below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I will continue to spread this understanding of "soal" with hopes of helping an individual understand their personal journey through life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherberryusa (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Balenciaga

for the article referring to YNW MELLY : https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/virtual-blue-balenciagas/1419601184?i=1419601193 And referring to Lil baby: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/no-socks-feat-lil-baby/1375110550?i=1375110680

Now put it back please. Dillydot3 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dillydot3, please provide reliable, independent references for statements like "controversial uprising rapper", "young artist", "murder charges" and "the main hook throughout the song". Please make sure not to add original research to the article. The statement beginning with "They even have" seems to be your personal conclusion, not the verifiable statement of a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-08

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

• When you thank someone on the mobile web you will now have two seconds to cancel the thank. This is in case you clicked on the thank button by accident. [187]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 February. It will be on all wikis from 21 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• There is a proposal to add a red link to mobile search results if there is no page with that name. This is how it works on desktop. You can leave feedback. [188]

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

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Message by Tito5918

hi thank u for your message. i just add two latin singers that i know. thank u To Be Free — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito5918 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tito5918!

Could you have a look at the sentence again, at Special:Diff/884027051? I think that the resulting sentence may have been an accident. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dashboard

Hi,

I like your Dashboard. May I have your permission to make another one for myself? Please! Xain36 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Xain36, thank you, I'm happy to hear that!

All contributions to Wikipedia, including the dashboard, are freely licensed. When keeping WP:CWW in mind, you may freely copy whatever you like. However, to make this easier for you, I have now created a dashboard at User:Xain36/Dashboard, and the semi-hidden link at User:Xain36. This makes any attribution unnecessary. As a next step, you may like to copy/move the content of User_talk:Xain36/common.js to User:Xain36/common.js. This will create a "Dashboard" link at the top, next to "Talk" and "Sandbox".

Please let me know if I can do anything else to help you. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you. Xain36 (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How to get my AIV and RPP log? Any link. Xain36 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK there are no AIV and RFPP logs present for each user. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Yahoo! Look this. Xain36 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xain36, Abelmoschus Esculentus is correct: These need to be created and updated manually. I have described the process at the top of my own AIV and RFPP logs, but this is complicated and requires a Linux command line tool. These logs can be generated after you have already made hundreds of reports; they can not be enabled in advance. For this reason, I would recommend not to create AIV and RFPP logs yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) yup, but converting that to wikitext with links requires strange workarounds. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Which Linux are you using? Because I am using Kali Linux for hacking purposes. Xain36 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xain36: oh, I personally never saw a need to permanently install a specialized Linux distribution on a desktop computer. For example, all the tools shipped with Kali can also easily be installed on any other Linux system. For me, it's currently Ubuntu with the KDE desktop. When I had replaced my harddrive, I tried a plain Ubuntu installation to give Canonical's Unity environment a chance. Unity has since been discontinued and replaced by GNOME again. I don't like GNOME, so I switched to KDE. The Ubuntu+KDE combination can also be downloaded as "Kubuntu", which I had used many years before. So I'm now back to my childhood Linux.

Regarding hacking, unless you know the page already, I highly recommend reading the following essay by Eric S. Raymond: catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is

You may also like to have a look at Tails Linux, my favorite Linux distribution for public computer access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing additions

I find it curious that not 12 hours after adding information to a page it is removed, despite being factual, non offensive and relevant. The source is national BBC radio and Twitter from last week and available for all to listen to and verify. I was not making a personal opinion about the individuals mentioned but merely reporting what discussion followed the interview. Removing additions, not edits, obviously means a lot to you so go ahead and keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happily Helping (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Happily Helping, when writing about living people on Wikipedia, it is especially important not to add original research to articles, and to provide reliable sources for your claims, per WP:BLP. I am also afraid that your additions did not adhere to a neutral point of view ("largely considerred", "very controversial", "wide controversy"). Please take a moment to read at least the lead/beginning of the WP:BLP policy.

On your user page, you seem to have announced an intent of continuing to edit biographies. Because this kind of edits seems to be problematic and editing biographies in general is full of pitfalls, I personally would recommend doing something else for now. The page WP:Community portal contains ideas for contributing in other ways.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Was tun wenn man zwei Hirne in sich trägt - engl u dt

Hi To-Be-Frei, vielleicht ist mein Beitrag jetzt nicht so erfrischend wie das mit den ach so leckeren Plätzchen - jummy - habe eine generelle Frage: Was tut man oder was tut frau wenn es zu einem Sachverhalt eine engl Darstellung und eine andere dt Version gibt, beides auch zusammen gehört - ich spreche aber nicht davon dass man einfach eine Seite übersetzen will. Blöd läuft das anscheined wenn es auch noch um Abkürzungen geht die historisch gewachsen ident sind - so stand HPLC früher mal für "high pressure liquid chromatography" - heute arbeitet man da gar nicht mehr mit hohen Druck aber man wollte diese berühmte Abkürzung einer Analysemethode beibehalten, so hat man sich gebogen und heute steht hinter HPLC "high perfomance liquid chromatography". Hmm, sowas scheint es öfter zu geben - so wird aus einer "Arbeitsgemeinschaft" einfach das Wort Association, und aus "Internationale" dann international. Und wenn jetzt noch die Donau im engl Danube heisst wird es wohl ein ober-wirrwar? Plötzlich ist eine IAD sowohl die Int Arbeitsgemeinschaft Donauforschung als auch Int Assoc Danube research - ich finde das auch alles nicht so toll - aber wie müsste man denn in Wikipedia da tun - wenn es alleinig um so einen Sachverhalt geht, dass A: Die Abkürzung dieselbe ist, und B: nun blöder Weise auch noch in verschiedenen Sprachen zsammen gehört es aber keine einfache inhaltliche Übersetzung ist. Danke für deine Antwort und noch viel Spass beim virtuellen Kecks Schmeckenlassen, oder sind es doch Cookies? --Katrin Teubner (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi To-Be-Frei, bin es nochmal in einem Extra-Textfeld weil es nun ein anderes Thema ist. Hmmm, muss ich jetzt als Generalsekretärin bei der IAD zurücktreten - oder gibt es eine andere Möglichkeit, damit die IAD-Seite nicht gelöscht bleibt? Ich habe vollste Zustimmung und auch Respekt bezüglich der Regeln bei Wiki - ist ja auch nicht leicht bei der ehrlichen Offenlegung des Names da was zu finden - ich hatte aus Ehlichkeit meinen wahren Namen als user:name benutzt. Obwohl ich bitte sehr anerkenne dass ich hier auf einen ersten Blick mich hier nicht richtig verhalten habe, möchte ich dennoch hier um einen request bitten: Wäre es möglich von einem unabhängigen Editor/Administrator die Seite neu zu prüfen und dann bitte zu markieren wo es KEINE neutrale Darstellung vonseiten meiner Person (persönlich oder als gs) dort gibt. Seit Jahren - schon vor vielen Jahre - habe ich immer beim Anschauen der IAD-engl Seite gedacht, oh nein - wie schwach. Nur damals hätte ich nicht gewagt da was selbst zu ergänzen - erst meine Mitarbeit bei NeusiderseeWiki hat mich nun hier ermuntert (u ich hatte Pläne fernab von IAD in Wiki, wollte weisse Seiten mit füllen). Hmm, es gibt einige schwache Seiten in Wiki,ja sicher, u gewiss am Anfang, die dann oft besser werden. Bekomme ich eine zweite Chance? Es ging mir um die Donau! So wie wenn ich über Honig schreibe, es mir um den Honig ginge. Übrigens war diese WikiSeite über den Honig für mich ein Vorbild in der länderübergreifenden Darstellung in Wiki. Darf ich denn künftig überhaupt was zur Seenkunde in Wiki sagen, denn Seen (nicht Flüsse) sind mein wissenschaftliches Berufsfeld. Oder sollte ich mich da auch sehr zurück halten (dh besser gar nicht erst anfangen), wenn ich aus meinem konkreten Wissens-schatz da Fehler oder zu mangelhafte Refs in Wiki sehe. Ich hatte nämlich eigentlich vor mich mehr bei den Naturwissenschaften, konkret Umweltforschung in Wiki einzubringen. Das wäre mir wichtig vorab zu wissen - für einen Artikel zu recherchieren und dann einfach den gelöscht zu bekommen - hmm, da lass ich mir lieber Cookies genüsslich schmecken. Daher: In Anerkennung der Regeln bei Wikipedia, die ich selbst auch wirklich für gut erachte, trotzdem nun die Frage: Gibt es eine Möglichkeit die nicht-neutralen Textpassagen bei der engl IAD-Wiki zu markieren / heraus zu nehmen. Das würde mich ur-ur freuen - kein Schmäh - ich meine es wirklich so. Warum: Ich habe den Text für Wiki geschrieben - und dort fände ich den Text gut! Weiters (das war jetzt in Österr Sprache, ohje, noch eine Sprache) bitte aber noch eine Frage: Warum ist der engl IAD-Artikel nun auf Wikiwand - und dort inzwischen populär? Ich kenn mich nicht aus. Und sofern die engl IAD-Seite in Wikipedia blockiert bleibt (wenn dem leider so ist und keine erneute Prüfung möglich ist, in Kombination mit Änderung von meinem user:name), würde ich gern "meinen" Text und "mein" Foto in Wiki wieder löschen, um es dann alles 1:1 sauber (dh ohne Copyrightverletzung) woanders im Netz zu veröffentlichen. Ich bin ja Guachterin von Artikeln und weiss, dass bei Ablehnung eines Artikels die Autoren ihre Rechte zurück bekommen und sie so in einer anderen Zeitschrift denselben Artikel neu einreichen und dann auch veröffentlichen können. Völlig üblich: Die Zeitschrift "Nature" lehnt einen Artikel ab, Neueinreichung des unwesentlich geänderten Artikels in "Science" u der Artikel wird dort angenommen. Ein Glück auch, sonst würden sich Wissenschaftler und damit der Fortschritt irgendwie gegenseitig blockieren. So zählt in der Wissenschaft auch bitte nicht nur wo man seinen Artikel dann gedruckt bekommt, sondern viel mehr wie oft er gelesen und zitiert wird. Ich lese in Wikipedia sehr gern gut recherchierte Artikel. Es ist für mich oft der erste Anlaufpunkt, wenn ich mich nicht auskenne - die Referenzen ermöglichen es dann weiter zu lesen und sich ggf ein noch breiters Bild zu machen. So sei Dank allen WikiEditoren, so auch dir To-Be-Frie oder To-Be_Free dass du auf den auf den ersten Blick interpretierten MissStand überhaupt auch aufmerksam gemacht hast - egal wie das mit der engl IAD-Seite ausgeht - als Nutzer werde ich auf jeden Fall Wiki weiter gern nutzen.--Katrin Teubner (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Katrin Teubner, thank you very much for your kind, detailled messages.

Before I answer the questions, let's recapitulate what has happened.

• On the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), a German page has been created.
• Deletion of the page has been proposed to happen after seven days, during which I had expected (and asked) you to create the same page on the German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia.org) instead.
• Because you sadly have not done so yourself, someone else has copied the content of the German article to the German Wikipedia, where it belongs.
• Because there was no reason to keep the German article on the English Wikipedia anymore, the German article has been deleted here.

That was the first part. Then, the English article on the English Wikipedia has been noticed to be the product of possibly undisclosed paid editing, a likely conflict of interest and a lack of reliable, independent sources. It has been moved to Draft:International_Association_for_Danube_Research.

Your "honest disclosure" of your real name alone does not solve the following potential problems:

• Paid edits without explicit disclosure, a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Service
• A strong conflict of interest that doesn't magically disappear by disclosure.

While your usage of your real name allowed us to notice the problem, editing anonymously would not have made that better. I can therefore not commend you for being honest; I rather need to advise you to be more honest next time, and to respect the Terms of Service of any platform that you use for advertising. The same advice goes to all colleagues who have been involved in writing the article.

Wikiwand is a Wikipedia mirror. If an article has been deleted on Wikipedia and is still accessible via Wikiwand, then the mirror is either outdated (and the article will be deleted there one day too), or they are not interested in deleting pages that have been deleted here.

You are absolutely welcome to edit any other article, even (or especially) about topics you have professional knowledge about. That is not a problem, and it never was. Potential pitfalls to be avoided:

• Using your own organization's publications as references
• Adding content without providing a reliable source because you "know" it must be right
• Mentioning your organization, or your organization's work, in other articles

The idea is to edit for the encyclopedia, not for your organization. If you provide independent, reliable, secondary sources for your statements, and the statements have nothing to do with your personal research, nothing to do with the IAD, and have not been written by colleagues/partners at the IAD, then you are welcome to add them.

For further communication, please keep WP:COITALK in mind:

Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise.

Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional note, as I have overlooked that question above: Katrin Teubner, contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are licensed under a Creative Commons license, which can not be revoked. However, you have also never lost any rights, just the ability to give exclusive rights to anyone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As in the John Mulaney page, isn't it a given?

It's like saying someone is human and having to prove it with a source. Everyone just knows, it's a default piece of knowledge, like a natural law. John Mulaney is an immortal, and you may do research to see for yourself. But I'll cite a source if that's what you wish. Call me Bichard (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Call me Bichard, I do wish. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Message by 71.149.240.238

sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.240.238 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi 71.149.240.238, no worries and thanks for stopping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

कुछ विषय की जानकारी विकिपीडिया में शामिल करना

हम लोकल गाइड गूगल के 13000 पॉइंट से सर् हम लोगो की हेल्प जो विकी पीडिया कर रहा है आप सब से जुड़ कर कुछ जानकारी देंगे जो हेल्प होगी — Preceding unsigned comment added by जादुगर आर आनंद (talk • contribs) 04:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi जादुगर आर आनंद, machine translation failed. Please provide English text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

hi-0इस सदस्य को हिन्दी भाषा नहीं आती है अथवा हिन्दी समझने में बहुत कठिनाई होती है।

~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

जो जानकारी विकिपीडिया में है उसे ऑर् सही जानकारी को जोड़ देना

जकड़ी जो है उसे सब मे जोर कर आगे लोगो की हेल्प में जादुगर आर आनंद (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi जादुगर आर आनंद, thank you for your message. I think that this discussion is sadly not fruitful. I am unsure how to respond. Please use https://hi.wikipedia.org instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

hi-0इस सदस्य को हिन्दी भाषा नहीं आती है अथवा हिन्दी समझने में बहुत कठिनाई होती है।

~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-09

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

• There is a new version of the iOS Wikipedia app. It has for example syntax highlighting and new toolbars to make it easier to write wikitext. It also has night mode, a find-on-page function and other things. You can give feedback and suggestions. [189]

Changes later this week

• When you look at your watchlist or the recent changes page you can use the new filters for edit review. There you can choose tags to filter different edits. Empty tags will no longer be shown. [190]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 February. It will be on all wikis from 28 February (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikipedia app for Android will invite users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. You can read more and leave feedback.

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

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of my Statements in the Page Kaushal Manda

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranaybalaga (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pranaybalaga, welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Message by 73.95.134.253

I've never visited the Paw Patrol page on Wikipedia, much less edited it; the notice I received indicated that no change was made anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.95.134.253 (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 73.95.134.253, please don't worry; you can freely ignore the message.

Your IP address, 73.95.134.253, is part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses and is registered to Comcast IP Services, L.L.C.. It may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages that were not intended for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-10

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

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You can give feedback on the future of talk pages.
• The mobile website will use the standard fonts on your computer or phone instead of a generic font. This will make it easier to read text in many scripts. [191][192]

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

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

hi

thank u for your help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito5918 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tito5918, you're welcome. Feel free to ask whenever you have a new question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Original title: "This is insane."

This had originally deleted by a friendly talk-page watcher. I am thankful for every second that other people help me to save for answering serious requests, and removing personal attacks is very welcome. Especially requesting revision-deletion of severe attacks is definitely very helpful. However, I do respond even to requests that other people might consider to be silly or lacking even the most basic competence that is required for editing Wikipedia. Unless someone personally attacks specific editors or sends a message that can not be normally replied to, I often prefer to keep these messages.
In this specific case, the user who sent the message has later been blocked for allegedly being either "competence challenged" or "intentionally trolling us all". See the block log for reference.
Blocking someone for an alleged lack of competence is perhaps the most problematic and controversial type of blocking to do. I personally would avoid ever doing this. There are experienced administrators who are willing to do this, and they do a good job, but this specific type of block is extremely problematic in my eyes. Blocking someone based solely on the "Competence is required" essay (!) will always be controversial, and enforcing such a block retroactively is definitely not something I will do on my talk page.
In a nutshell, thank you very much, and do feel free to continue helping, but this specific message really has a right to stay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You were very helpful, but some people are not. I'm about to be blocked for that nomination after users that have JUST WP:BULLY'd me complained and lied about arbitrary things. See my thread and my rebuttals on ANI titled: "I'm being accused of being a vandal". Three admins are now in the process of blocking me and refusing to give reasons. After posting this post, look what this user did on ANI after that. (Sorry, the ANI link is not working). I even have a new WP:MENTOR that recently said I'm WP:HERE. Oh well. Like I said, this started spiraling downhill after I said I watch Fox News. After just saying that too on that admin's page, they've now changed their mind and is now also blocking me instead of defending me. I am upset and think I will soon just get rid of my account and leave. I would like to report this incident to the bureaucrats that run WP, but I'm not sure where to go. I'll be looking around for that. -GDP⇧ 09:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@GDP Growth: Oh my.

Thank you very much for your message. At the moment, I see that you have been blocked and can not reply here. For a moment, I have considered offering to copy messages from your talk page to mine, but that could be interpreted as "proxying" per WP:PROXYING or block evasion per WP:BLOCKEVASION. I might consider to merge and move the whole conversation to my talk page archive in the future. That would probably be okay. So, at the moment, if you would like to reply to this message, simply do so on your talk page. I will add a new section to your talk page, labelled "Talkback" or something like that. You can simply respond below the notification on your talk page. I will respond there as well, so we have the discussion in one place.

About the block

Just to make this clear, although it hopefully is already: I am not an administrator, and even if I was, I could not remove this block. There are very strict policies about unblocking users, especially about undoing other administrators' actions. If you would like to read more about the "rules" administrators need to adhere to, feel free to have a look at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking.

To be unblocked, in your specific case, I would personally suggest:

• Taking a break for at least two weeks, if not a month or two. I am being serious: You will likely need some distance, and many nights to sleep over this. One thing that I can guarantee is: It will not hurt, it can only get better, the longer you wait. If you instinctively disagree with my previous sentence, you likely need to wait at least half a year.
• I personally would use the time to read a book, whatever is interesting. Any book will do. Absolutely no idea? I have two suggestions from my personal bookshelf:

• Tao Te Ching, a small, cheap, short book that will however take months to understand, and that is very likely available in any language you like, and
• How to Win Friends and Influence People, a big, long book full of wonderful stories, also available in multiple languages.

Both are not completely unrelated to the whole case, I would personally say. Please do not mistake the title of the second book. It refers to "Friends" and "People", but that is not my point! I mean the Wikipedia community. It works!

All the time that you normally spent on Wikipedia, could instead be spent reading. Of course, you could also do anything else, but reading a printed book and not using the computer in the same time has proven to do wonders for me. After that, I would recommend

• Reading the established guideline at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, and
• Reading the following useful essay, which is much more detailled: Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks
• Why stop there? It can be very useful to know the policy the administrators are using as well: Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Agreeing to a topic ban, per WP:TBAN, with whatever scope the community recommends. If they ask you to stop editing a specific area, the best idea is probably actually taking this advice. This can be a very useful way of regaining the ability to participate everywhere else. Wikipedia is sooooo large!

About "bullying"

Please always be careful about the difference between policies, guidelines and essays. WP:BULLY is an essay, although it is not marked as such as clearly as some other essays. The important part is the following message at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

That said, of course, WP:BULLY is a useful essay. It would just be wrong to quote it like a policy, especially when asking for administrative action against someone who has not adhered to it. The policy you might be looking for is Wikipedia:Civility.

One problem, apparently, with the ANI request was exactly the topic: "I'm being accused of being a vandal" (archive link, permanent link). This apparently has not actually happened.

About taking advice

From what I have seen so far, I would sincerly recommend taking any advice that User:Softlavender has given to you so far, and taking any further advice they give. Together with my above message, I would be surprised if you really need to "leave" forever.

About "leaving"?

One note about leaving should be made here: If you actually decide to do (I do not hope so! Please stay), there is one thing that you may never do: Coming back with a different account while being blocked. If you decide to leave, and after a few years decide to come back, you must do so using your old account. If you lost access, you must try regaining it; if this fails, you must immediately explain the situation, and create a link to your old account, as soon as you register a new account. You must make very clear that you have read and understand the WP:SOCK policy, if you ever use a new account while being blocked with an old account.

You may take all time you wish. You may appeal the block in a few days, but I do not recommend this. You may come back in many years, but that would be overkill. I have suggested a more reasonable timespan above ("taking a break"). The only thing that would permanently ruin all hope is evading the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A late update: GDP Growth has been unblocked, 2019-03-20T10:59:37. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11

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

• Pages can use geocoordinates from Wikidata with the mw.wikibase.entity:formatStatements Lua function or the #statements parser function. If they do, they will now be shown using a Kartographer <maplink> if the wiki can use Kartographer. You can report bugs or ask questions on Phabricator.
• There is now an EventStream to see when links are added or removed on Wikimedia wikis. You can read the discussions and plans.

Problems

• Some wikis will not be able to edit for a short period of time on 19 March (UTC). This will start at 15:00 UTC. It will last up to 15 minutes but probably shorter. You can see the list of affected wikis. This is because of network maintenance. You can still read the wikis.
• Editors who use Firefox to edit with the visual editor had a problem with copying text. When they tried to select text that included footnotes, templates or block images in the middle they would often only get part of the text. This has now been fixed. [193]
• Some maps didn't work for a while on 8 March. This has been fixed. [194][195]

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

2401:4900:1684:C59F:2:1:9A:EB0D

You final-warned and I blocked simultaneously. Let me know if you think it's worth one more chance and I'll unblock. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, thank you very much both for the block and for asking here. Made me smile; that's very kind. I have removed my warning because I agree with your action and we can avoid duplication that way. Should a similar situation arise again, you are absolutely welcome to remove my redundant message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for vandalism-patrolling. Happy...morning, evening, whatever it is where you are. DMacks (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello ToBeFree

I appreciate the links and advice - and cookies too! Thank you for taking the time to share these with me. JollideeJollidee (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jollidee, you're welcome! I am happy to hear that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12

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

• When you use rollback you will be able to get a confirmation prompt on most wikis. It asks you if you wanted to do the rollback. This is to avoid misclicks. You will have to opt in to get it. On German Wikipedia it will be an opt-out feature from 28 March. [196][197]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Admins will be able to block someone from editing a page or a namespace. This already works on a few Wikimedia wikis. You can read more. If your wiki wants to be an early tester of this, you can tell the developers. [198]
• Toolforge will shut down the Ubuntu Trusty job grid. This will happen the week of 25 March. Tools that use this grid needs to be moved to the new Debian Stretch job grid. If they haven't, they will be taken offline. Maintainers can restart the tools later. Users may not be able to use them in the meanwhile. You can see a list of affected tools.

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

19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why.

Why would you ruin my night, you big fat robot. Wait, is this a robot? I sure hope so, I really don't want to offend a real human person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.10.228 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 131.204.10.228, I'm a human. I'm not offended, though.
Do take a moment to read the message on your talk page, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariosKyriazis

Please don't change the status of SPI cases like this. I know you mean well, but all that actually accomplished was to make me think the page had been vandalized, since most unexplained status changes are vandalism. Leave the clerical work to the SPI clerks. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sir Sputnik, I almost expected that response. Sorry, won't happen again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Emirati Foods

I am doing an essay on the UAE and I need the details for the foods. Please add the Emirati Foods.

                                                                    Due/April/2/2019
                    (Guest User)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.86.242 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 

Hi 64.90.86.242, my only message on the IP talk page has been about the following contribution: Special:Diff/860163119. The message was likely not intended for you. I had been addressing someone else who had used that IP address back in 2018.
For your essay question, I sadly can't help with that. If you would like to request an addition to an existing article, please click "Talk" above the article and create a "New section" there. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Liferay "Recognition" Section?

Hi ToBeFree,

Sorry to disturb you again. Not sure if you saw this on the Talk page but I was wondering if we could add in a "recognition" section similar to what one of our competitors, Episerver has on their page?

Yotaml2 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, thanks for pointing out an issue in the Episerver article. I think we should avoid copying that self-promotional mistake to Liferay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, OK, no problem, just wanted to ask :).

Yotaml2 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

shame on you

do you know how many hours I was researching on this? do you know how many books I referred to? I'm not a native English talker but I made sure everything was grammatically right, my edits was a complete copy of the Persian topic which was written by doctor ebrahim bastani parizi, shame on you shame Alizohrehkermani (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alizohrehkermani, thank you for your message. Two users have undone your contributions; the next logical step is discussing the proposed changes on the article's talk page. The text is not lost; you can always retrieve it from the "history" of the article. See:

• Special:Diff/889065653
• Special:Diff/889137405

To keep the discussion central, I will not comment further on the specific edit until there is a discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Marathon. Please use the "new section" button on that page to propose the changes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Three users have reverted the changes now, and please remember to log in when editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-13

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 new version of the content translation tool will be used for all new translations. The older version will still be used for translations that were started with it. Most users won’t see any change. More than 80% of the published translations are already using the new version. [199]

Problems

• There was a problem with editing with Safari on iOS. When you wrote an edit summary you couldn't save the edit. This has now been fixed. [200]
• The editing toolbar sometimes disappears when you scroll on iOS devices. This will be fixed soon. [201]
• Wikis can over-ride interface messages on-wiki. A problem meant that sometimes an old versions of any changed messages were shown instead. This included the sitenotice and other important parts of the interface. This was fixed at around 2019-03-22 16:00 (UTC). Logged-out users may still get the wrong message. Purging the page should fix it for them. [202]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Left you a question

Greetings ToBeFree. Thanked you for you feedback on Kai Staats and then realized I should have done that here. Anyway, I also left you a question about one of the "citation needed" flags. Hope to see you back on Talk:Kai_Staats soon. Thanks again. Astro3.142 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Astro3.142, you're welcome, and thank you for taking the time and patience to deal with this. Regarding the location of the message, no worries, a short "thank you" is fine on either page; the separation between user-related and article-related content is not that strict. To make it technically easier, Wikipedia offers a "thank" link next to contributions in the history of any page.
Regarding the article question, thank you for the notification; I should have notified you of my response to the help request as well. Luckily, the software also provides a nice technical feature for this. I have used it in my latest response ({{subst:u|Username}}). Adding this to any page automatically notifies the user if a signature is added with the same edit. The signature requirement prevents accidental notifications when editing or moving previous comments.
Wikipedia's atmosphere towards editors with a conflict of interest may be disappointing. Policies like WP:BLP are meant to help the article subject and to protect them from libel. The community had bad experiences like the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident and the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, which led to the creation of a paid contribution policy. However, Wikipedia is huge, and previously paid editors are more than welcome to become volunteers. The community portal offers a list of ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hiya ToBeFree. That's a cool shortcode trick. Thanks. I just used it in my followup on Talk:Kai_Staats. Hopefully that external link is what you're looking for. Astro3.142 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The Chancellor gave me the information, even though it's similar to his bio, to use on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKoan (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi BKoan, did the chancellor write the text himself? Else, the writer likely personally needs to donate their text to Wikipedia. And if the chancellor wrote the text himself, please forward the following link to him:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography

Deletions are not permanent; the content can be restored when permission is received by the volunteer team. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I spent three hours editing a document and it was deleted. how do I get it back with the changes I was working on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKoan (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi BKoan, that wasn't me this time, but it was likely justified. Have you sent the requested permission to the volunteer team? As soon as they have processed the message, the draft will likely be restored. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I contact the volunteer team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKoan (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi BKoan, this is sadly not as straightforward as it may sound to you. If you, as a person, are the original author of the texts that you have copied, then you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If anyone else wrote the source texts, for example the chancellor, then the chancellor needs to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In his specific case, he also needs to read Wikipedia:Autobiography, which effectively asks him not to do this because he has a strong conflict of interest regarding this article. And if the chancellor hired a professional writer to create these texts, then that writer needs to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Unless you personally wrote the text in your own words, you need to stop copying it, and you'll need to patiently wait until the copyright matter has been resolved by those who have the permission to donate the texts to Wikipedia. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits While Logged Out?

Hello ToBeFree,

I just received a message saying that I may have edited while being logged out of my account. I did not make any edits while I was logged out. My device is not shared with anyone else. The edits made by the IP address on March 24 were not by me, so I do not know if I have the same IP address as someone else (if that is even possible, which I do not think it is) or if something else is going on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberrydoo7 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pillsberrydoo7, it may well be a dynamic IP address. Don't worry, the message was not meant for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Replied ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-14

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

• Notifications tell you about things that happen on the wiki. You can turn on notifications about new links to pages you created. For performance reasons you can no longer get e-mails about this. [203]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1.5 kV to 25 kV transformer

Wie gehts Ihnen
Does it really need a 3 t transformer to enable to run a train/locomotive under either one voltage in turn? Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter Horn, thank you for your message -- but I can't find the claim in the article. I am unsure what we are talking about, and I'm not a train expert. Could you be a bit more specific? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This was a claim made by the REM in a personal letter to me. My email address is (removed by ToBeFree 00:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)). If you send me your email by way of mine, I'll send you a scan of that letter. The REM is arrogant and not open to any compromise. I had suggested dual voltage trains to the them since 25 kV now exists in the Mount Royal Tunnel etc, and the REM came up with the nonsens. Peter Horn User talk 23:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Horn: sent via Wikipedia, received your answer. Thanks. Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure if I fully understand the problem, however. Is there a dispute on Wikipedia about this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is strictly a dispute outside of Wiki. I just need the opinion of an electrical engineer. To me a 3 tonne (3000 kg) sounds like, nonsense.

I see :) Peter Horn, your question is an honor to me, but I lack the experience to answer it and an electrical engineering forum may be more likely than Wikipedia to attract users who can competently answer the question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to submit an article I wrote for review but I don't see the Submit button.

What am I missing? FreqmachineFreqmachine (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freqmachine (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Freqmachine, the button is blue and labelled "Submit your draft for review!". It is displayed at the top of Draft:Martin Cohen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Freqmachine, I think I found the actual issue; I should have noticed that before. Your sandbox and Draft:Martin Cohen existed with almost the same content. Because you had made improvements at Draft:Martin Cohen, I have replaced your sandbox by a redirect to Draft:Martin Cohen. If you try to open your sandbox, you will now be automatically redirected to the correct place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!Freqmachine (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-15

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

• More wikis are now testing visual editor section editing for mobile users. You can read more.
• Admins on French and Polish Wikipedia can block someone from editing a page or a namespace. If your wiki wants to get these blocks before they are available to all wikis, you can tell the developers. [204][205]

Problems

• You will be able read but not edit most wikis for 30 minutes on 11 April at 05:00 (UTC). This is because of a hardware problem. You can see a list of the affected wikis. [206]
• A map update caused some problems on 29 March and 30 March. It was rolled back. [207]
• Pages on some Wikivoyages had problems with the top headline. This has been fixed. [208]

Changes later this week

• When you add an edit summary the VisualEditor will search your recent edit summaries in case you want to re-use one. This works in both the visual and wikitext modes on desktop. It also works on the mobile site. [209]
• The Wikimedia wikis will get a URL shortener. This will work from 11 April. You can read more. [210]
• The {{REVISIONID}} magic word will no longer work. This is for performance reasons. When you preview a page it will return "" (empty string). When you read a page it will return "-" (dash). For now this will only affect content namespaces. [211]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 April. It will be on all wikis from 11 April (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• You will be able to preview references. This means that when you hover over the link you will get a popup that shows you a preview of the reference. It will work much like page previews. This is so you don't have to go to the bottom of the page to see a reference. This will now be available as a beta feature on German and Arabic Wikipedia. [212][213]
• The Wikidata JSON output will change. Empty containers will be serialised as empty objects. This is a breaking change that will affect tools that use JSON outputs and APIs. It will happen on 30 April. You can read more and see how to test your code.

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

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

1000 words

My addition is quite true, neutral and without malice, cant or humbug. It demonstrates "disagreement" as per the heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:157F:F550:E861:6F3F:70D1:D794 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2604:3D08:157F:F550:E861:6F3F:70D1:D794, please have a closer look at Special:Diff/891704143 and Special:Diff/891704277 again. This seems to be a personal conclusion, and no source has been provided. Also, the text has been added inside a reference template, which was likely unintentional: Have a look at reference number 10 in your versions.

The placement was unintentional, but the content is a radio broadcasting industry reality. As in the article newspapers used the phrase to sell space. Radio countered the affirmation by agreeing with some of the contrary affirmations ... Chinese and otherwise as cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:157F:F550:E861:6F3F:70D1:D794 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for creating a discussion at Talk:A_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_words#Disagreement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I have nothing to add to the existing arguments. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-16

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

• All wikis now have the TemplateWizard for the wikitext editor.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 April. It will be on all wikis from 18 April (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 17 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Wikidata will get a new constraint status called suggestion. This will change how the WikibaseQualityConstraints constraint checking API works. [214][215]
• You can test the depicts property for structured data on Commons.

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

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-17

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

• The advanced search function URL now shows which namespaces you search in. The namespace field is collapsed by default on the search page. You can also add new fields to the search interface through a hook. [216][217][218]
• The wikis now look slightly different in the mobile web version. [219]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Wikipedia articles will have the sameAs meta property. It adds structured data. This makes it easier for search engines to find Wikipedia articles. It also makes it easier to reuse content. There will an A/B test. [220][221]

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

19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, see phab:T198970#5132583 and [222] which links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSlayer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Issac Macharia Gathu draft deleted

Hello, I am trying to write a biography about myself. I was testing the page to see if my content will be acceptable. Any relevant sources need to support my work was to be added as i proceed with my work. i kindly therefore ask you to help approve my work so i can add more relevant sources as i progress with my work. if at the end of my biography no relevant information will have been published, then it will be well with me if the work is deleted. unit then, kindly support my work and let it be published. it will be of much value to me when people can research about me and find my work listed in the Wikipedia. i am a significant member of my society and an upcoming public figure. it is my wish to have my work published so that more people can get to know about me. kindly help. thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashizaq (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mashizaq, I'm sorry, but I'll have to disappoint you here. The best advice I can give about writing autobiographies is "please do not do this". The page Wikipedia:Autobiography contains a detailed explanation of the issue.
Please see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure or Wikipedia:Community portal for new ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please.....

Can you please explain what this edit is all about, as in why are you restoring another editors archiving, why did you leave personal information in the edit summary and so on. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 13:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi FlightTime Phone, I had been talking to Abelmoschus Esculentus before and was -- for example -- involved in the discussion about regaining the rollback flag. I stumbled upon a "Scripts++" newsletter that mentioned his retirement and the maintenance by DannyS712. Having a look at Abelmoschus Esculentus' user talk page again, the "discouraged" template was gone and replaced by a permanent retirement tag. I first thought about adding {{nobots}} to the page as it was getting filled up with newsletters, and I saw an unanswered suggestion by Thegooduser to do the same, but I didn't want to unsubscribe someone else from newsletters that they may still like to receive (and maybe even read). So I fixed the long-term problem in the least controversial way I could find, restoring the 365d archive configuration that Abelmoschus Esculentus had used himself.
About the personal information, I wanted to provide a way to contact me about my edit without having to make another edit in Wikipedia. My identity is not a secret, but I prefer to keep details like my postal address, phone number and bot-readable e-mail address away from Wikipedia. Telling someone to message me at "my first name AT my domain" is not a new thing, I have done that before at User_talk:ToBeFree/Archive_1#A_beer_for_you!. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you have to admit, stumbling across that edit would catch anyone's eye, even this early in the morning. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for causing perfectly understandable confusion. Thanks for asking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For your work with me helping users on IRC. I probably should see where else I haven't subst'd {{draft}}. I don't mind nice people stalking my contributions. Vermont does it all the time and he'll randomly PM me about things I've done RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

wat. Vermont (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, Yes, you do it all the time. I'll do something and a few hours later (or even days), I'll get a PM saying RhinosF1, I saw you do...... and asking me something or what did you say to..... when certain users do things and I'm left thinking where did that come from? Although, for the record, I don't mind. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RhinosF1, and that's nice to hear. I too enjoy working with you on IRC, and I believe that you have the necessary, and not to be taken for granted on Wikipedia, civility combined with learning aptitude that is fundamentally required to competently help other users with their manifold questions and problems. I wish more users had your attitude. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a bit to go but your words are greatly appreciated!! RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-18

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 Wikipedia app for Android now invites users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. [223][224]

Problems

• Tech News was late last week because of a MassMessage bug. Other newsletters had the same problem. [225]

Changes later this week

• You will see when you last refreshed the recent changes page. This is so you can see how recent the changes are. [226]
• When you write a comment in Structured Discussions but have not posted it yet your web browser will save it in local storage instead of session storage. This means you do not lose them even if you close your web browser. Structured Discussions used to be called Flow. [227]
• You will be able to turn off milestone notifications. Milestone notifications congratulate you when you have made certain numbers of edits. [228]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikidata wb_terms table will be dropped. This will affect some Wikidata tools. They need to be updated. The table has become too big which is causing problems. This will happen on 29 May. You can read more. You can ask for help if you need it.
• Wikimedia wikis will soon use a token when you log out. This changes how the API works. Some tools might need to be updated. [229]

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

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Read ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Messages by 184.61.216.207

How did u catch me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.216.207 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why were u on the concrete page anyway?

WHY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.216.207 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(Heading converted to bold text)
Hi 184.61.216.207, if you're really interested in how the scoring system works, see mw:ORES and this list of recent changes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/894935360

Tech News: 2019-19

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

Problems

• Special:Watchlist can show the wrong information. It does not always show which edits are read and which are unread. The developers are working on solving the problem. [230]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 May. It will be on all wikis from 9 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 8 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

First article_KetijaM

Dear ToBeFree,

Can you please help me to understand what is incorrect in terms of my first article on Wikipedia.org? I left massages for you on my talk page. Can you please check them? KetijaM (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi KetijaM, thank you very much for the notification. I have responded on your talk page now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

young justice season 3

if the wiki page of the show isnt a good source than what is? - Master2121

Hi The Master 2121, thank you for asking. This seems to be a misunderstanding: There is no official "wiki page of the show". You appear to be relying on information from a fan-made wiki on fandom.com. Like Wikipedia, anyone can edit the Fandom wiki, so it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Also, watching the show yourself may be fun, but does not make you a reliable source either. The relevant policy is called "No original research". In a nutshell, it means that an editor's personal experience is not a reliable source.
If you find a reliable source for your edits, and when your block has expired, you are welcome to provide a link to it on the talk page of the article, Talk:Young Justice: Outsiders. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Zed Shaw

As a matter of interest, what do you think was unnecessary or inappropriate about the links I added to the article on Zed Shaw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vk2sky (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vk2sky, my edit summary wasn't ideal; there is nothing inappropriate about them. The addition of external links in the article body, as described in Wikipedia's external links guideline, is not recommended (or unnecessary). In the way this had been done (Special:Diff/894937579), the links also did not serve as a reliable reference for any statements; they just seemed to be replacements for links to non-existing Wikipedia articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Amorphous solid

Thanks for finding my error in reverting a bad edit to a different bad edit in this article. It happens occasionally though I try to be alert to it. I suppose it can be apparent even when using Huggle that there is a previous bad edit - or at least a clue as to one - but I missed it here. I thought I would leave a special thanks for your alertness. For whatever reason, that problem remained in the article for about six weeks. I am a bit embarrassed about making a mistake that was left in place for that long but I am glad you fixed it. Donner60 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Donner60, no worries, you're welcome! The specific error had been mentioned by a user in the #wikipedia IRC channel on freenode. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete my edits

You deleted my edits on a school about the new principal and the new motto. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:b108:e389:c97f:da62:b16f:3af (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2600:1014:b108:e389:c97f:da62:b16f:3af, please provide a reliable source for your edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the above message (Special:Diff/896518644) appears to be an admission to having made the unconstructive edit at Special:Diff/896516699. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Scilman: Artists Space

Hello,

On May 2nd, I contributed edits to the Artists Space wikipedia page and they were subsequently removed because of copyright violations. I mistakenly excluded quotations when paraphrasing the sources I cited. I do not believe that I copy/pasted any material, but it seems I was flagged for this. Further, I cited all of the sources I consulted, but I am wondering if I did this incorrectly?

Please advise me on how to fix my edits. I really want to help contribute to this page, as it is missing a lot of crucial information and is a noteworthy institution.

Thank you so much for your help!

Scilman (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(waiting for a response by an administrator at User talk:Scilman) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Scilman ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughtful explanations. I want to continue to edit the page, but I'm worried the content will be removed once more. Is it possible to submit a draft to you for your approval before posting? I want to make sure that there contains no copyright violations before publishing, and that I don't get blocked due to another violation.

Please let me know if this is possible.

Thank you! Scilman (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scilman, nice to meet you. First of all, I'd like to note that none of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is meant to prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. This does not mean that we can ignore copyright laws, but the community normally encourages you to be bold in editing.

Sadly, I neither have the time nor ability to "approve" edits by doing extensive search for possible plagiation sources. While I can occasionally notice copyright violations, doing the opposite, a "non-violation" certification, is practically impossible and would give you a false feeling of security.

As long as you use your own words for normal text, and proper quotations for quoted sentences, there should be no problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-20

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

Changes later this week

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

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

My first Wikipedia page

Many thanks for submitting my David Stephenson page for review. As it turned out, it was reviewd (and accepted - phew!) in half an hour! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stephenson_(architect) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Warburton Brown (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Chris Warburton Brown, you're welcome, and congratulations! Thank you for expanding Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

:-)

thank you! [231] That is nice. Thank you! 78.55.22.17 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 78.55.22.17, you're welcome! And thank you for making the edit request; I saw it too late. I have not seen this before, but the word "testcases" is indeed ambiguous, and it is completely understandable that this has happened. No worries and good luck with the request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To keep the message permanently meaningful when it is archived, I have replaced "cur" by "897413282" in your link above, to produce the following link: Special:Diff/897413282. The link would instead always point to the latest change. The original message can be seen at Special:Diff/897413711; feel free to undo. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, cur was not very clever. Thank you! You are really friendly and helpful. Best regards from Berlin to NRW. :-) 78.55.22.17 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

For the Kazakh SSR [232] I could remove the ISO code, but for Uzbek SSR not [233]. They use different templates, which is another issue. But for Uzbek I cannot find where UZ comes from. 78.55.22.17 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. That's a nice surprise. Greetings from Wuppertal, your city is beautiful and I'm amazed by its size. Regarding your question, that was a tricky paperchase! See Special:PermanentLink/897418537#Uzbek_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_-_ISO_3166_code_UZ for the riddle's solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, per Special:Diff/897826618, the originally requested change has been  implemented. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-21

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

Recent changes

• The report for phase 1 of the talk pages consultation 2019 has been published. Communities are invited to start phase 2 of the consultation on their wikis.

Problems

• File descriptions for files from Commons were not shown properly on other Wikimedia wikis for a few days. For example the image descriptions and license information were missing. This has now been fixed. [234][235]
• Some diffs show an error message when you try to see them. The developers are working on fixing it. It could be because of some edit comments. [236][237]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 May. It will be on all wikis from 23 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The content translation tool on Wikipedia can use machine translations. There is a system to stop translations where the editors do not fix machine translation mistakes. This warns or stops them if they seem to just copy what the machine translation gives them. If this system is too strict or not strict enough you can tell the language team. [238]
• The Wikidata wbeditentity API endpoint will remove all aliases if the request includes an empty alias. This is how it supposed to work. It has not been working this way because of a bug. This will start on 12 June. [239]

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

13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	This is belated, but I owe a debt of gratitude to ToBeFree for extensive assistance with some difficult citation issues. Much appreciated! Astro3.142 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Astro3.142, this is very kind, thank you very much – and of course you're welcome. Good luck with the further development of the article; I'm currently a bit busy but may later have a look at the new "help me" request. Someone else will likely be faster than me, though. I have skimmed the new conversation at Talk:Kai Staats; it's nice to see that Huon has joined us there.
Have a nice evening*
*your timezone may vary ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Highly informative feedback on citations and sources, and very patient when explaining complicated policies. Thank you. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Two of them, that's a novelty. You're welcome, and thank you very much for the feedback.

Some editors may wonder what the purpose of donating and receiving immaterial awards is. In my opinion, these awards are one of the very few opportunities for the Wikipedia community to give something back to its volunteer members. There is a reason that the relevant WikiProject is called "WikiProject Editor Retention". The encyclopedia would long have died if its editors didn't have the feeling of receiving something back for their work. Editors who frustratedly leave the project often seem to do so not least because of a lack of appreciation for their invested time.

This may also explain why the deletion of articles can be seen as being harmful to the project, and – that's the inevitable consequence of the reasoning, if it is correct – why less moral scruples seem to be involved in the deletion of paid contributions.

We both now got rewarded for our work, and I hope that your compensation contract also encompasses the time you have spent to analyze and carefully adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your approach to editing and discussion deserves to be commended, and it positively distinguishes you from the apparent majority of paid editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Difficult article ...

Greetings ToBeFree,

You've spent so much time helping me out on Talk:Kai Staats that I wanted to stop by and address my primary motivation for accepting this editing job. You could probably extract this If you read the lengthy discussion on that page, but I'll save you some time here. I see you have a BSc in EE. Looked at EE myself but ended up in physics. Been an amateur astronomer for a long time so, like you, I have some grasp of what research the Staats article is talking about and felt qualified to take on that article.

I noticed you alluded to Staats being "(barely?) notable". I get that. When he came to me with a request to write that article I cautioned him about the notability criteria and explained that, even if we did this article, there's no guarantee some editor would object on the basis of notability and nominate the page for deletion. I also explained that I would need to disclose the fact that this was a paid article, and how that would raise certain flags prompting closer scrutiny.

He was OK with all that. So I told him to compile a list of verifiable sources I could use in the article. Some time later he sent me an extensive spreadsheet with way more than I needed or could actually use (tons of third party sources for example). But when I filtered out the sources I couldn't use, I was left with what I felt was an impressive body of work, both in science and film. And so I accepted the job.

I like your suggestion that maybe it's just best to leave some [third-party source needed] flags unchallenged. I see those flags all over Wiki, even on some very old articles. Staats may just have to accept that reality, but I'm going to give this one more shot with a response to you on his talk page. I think this time I've expressed my position more clearly regarding my use of those primary sources. I'll look forward to your (or Spintendo's) response.

Thanks again. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Astro3.142,

Thank you for this message. It may be the first time that I gain any insight into the decision making process behind accepting compensation for one's work on Wikipedia. I definitely appreciate and respect your decision, but I couldn't do this. I have seen an administrator fall; I have seen a destiny destroyed for what was apparently not even a large amount of money.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors, for 80 dollars per Special:Diff/818741848

Also see my response above and at Talk:Kai Staats. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I see your point ToBeFree, and again want to thank you for the time you've spent on this issue. I have on occasion regretted taking this job, and doubt I'll ever take another like it. That's a sad and scary story about TonyBallioni et.al. you linked me to. I totally see why editors tread lightly in these areas.

Staats had to convince me he was notable enough to have an article, and I tried to verify that objectively. First I reread the notability guidelines. Then I scanned several dozen biographical articles about living persons in science/writing/film, and I saw many subjects who were (in my opinion) "less notable", so I agreed to take the job. Notability spans a spectrum of course, and there's always going to be a "gray area" where, statistically, half the editors agree and half disagree. I understood Staats would be near that point, but I still maintain he's on the notable side.

Regarding the ongoing citation issue on Talk:Kai Staats, I'll be responding to your last comment later today. Thanks again. Astro3.142 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Advice on additional actions

Hi ToBeFree,

Thank you for your help in editing David Levy article to be neutral. There still seems to be a template that states, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." What can be done to remove this template?

Thank you, (always learning KMH1011)Kmh1011 (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kmh1011, thank you very much for taking the time to fix neutrality issues and to add citations in Special:Diff/898669066.

I think a good next step can be adding a message at Talk:David_Levy_(psychologist)#Autobiography. If you explain that you have done your best to solve issues in the article, and link to Special:Diff/898669066 so that others can quickly see your improvements, the other editors may agree that the "COI" template should be removed. I'd love to hear about Ruff tuff cream puff's opinion on this matter, too, as she has originally added the "autobiography" tag in Special:Diff/897051145.

Also feel free to provide a link to my message here, User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 1#Advice on additional actions.

Wikipedia can sometimes be pretty complicated. Don't worry if something is confusing at first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, yes sorry for the hassle. The photograph on the article (File:Cropped Photo for Wikipedia Profile David Levy.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by User:Kmh1011 who also claimed to be "David Levy" according to the redlink. Mostly I deal with photos at Commons, as it is important to check licensing statuses due to the rather large problem of copyright violations. As per routine, was checking if the uploader is the person who created the image or had permission to license it. Due to the redlink there, assumed that "David Levy" is both the person in the photo and the person who created it, which is fine, but it raised another problem; is the person in the biographical article actually editing it, raising conflict of interest concerns. I have done this with literally hundreds of articles with similar problems, it is nothing personal. As long as the statements in the article are sourced and fluffery is kept to a minimum, I have no problem with the COI tag being removed. Thanks and sorry again for the headache! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Ruff tuff cream puff, thank you very much for the explanation.

I have copied the message to Talk:David_Levy_(psychologist)#Autobiography. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Frank Millet Edits

Thanks for your response. I am not a Wikipedia expert, but a first time editor. I am however a Millet Scholar. I edited the incorrect kids section from 3 as it was to the 4 that the Millet's had and the one they lost Edwin. I am also a bit knowledgeable in the use of the English language, hence my carefully worded but hopefully clear comments about the Homosexuality claims made by the prior author. He is really one of very few who agree with his claims about Millet. But to support the comments with third party citations, which I agree are important, as well as personal scholarly expertise, I am attaching two quick items below. Possibly as a Wikipedia expert you can attach them appropriately. One is the Wikipedia citation and the other is from The History of English.

Mgsullivan (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Michael SullivanMgsullivan (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

My comment:

"It should be noted that in the 19th century language and personal relationships between people of the same gender were often expressed in language that by today's standards we would sexualize when in fact there was often no overt sexual behavior, homosexual or otherwise.  Words used in communications during the 19th century and prior, were often elaborate and intimate in nature between close associates, unlike today's language which is comprised of short, often curt and simple words."  

Please see: Romantic Friendship in Wikipedia as one supporting citation for my comments and the History of English under literary developments as a second citation.

A romantic friendship, passionate friendship, or affectionate friendship is a very close but typically non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in the contemporary Western societies. It may include for example holding hands, cuddling, hugging, kissing, giving massages, and sharing a bed, or co-sleeping, without sexual intercourse or other physical sexual expression. In historical scholarship, the term may be used to describe a very close relationship between people of the same sex during a period of history when homosexuality did not exist as a social category. In this regard, the term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid-19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.[1] Romantic friendship between women in Europe and North America became especially prevalent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with the simultaneous emergence of female education and a new rhetoric of sexual difference.[2]

And 

https://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_late_modern.html

Literary Developments

A vast number of novels (of varying quality and literary value) were published in the 19th Century to satisfy the apparently insatiable appetite of Victorian Britain for romantic stories, ranging from the sublimity of Jane Austen’s works to the florid excesses and hackneyed phrasing typified by Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s famous opening lines “It was a dark and stormy night...” Due to the strictures of prudish Victorian society, an inventive list of euphemisms were popularized for body parts and other unmentionable concepts, a prudery perhaps epitomized by Thomas Bowdler’s “bowdlerization” of the works of Shakespeare in which offending words like strumpet, whore, devil, etc, were removed or toned down.

The early 19th century language of Jane Austen appears to all intents and purposes to be quite modern in vocabulary, grammar and style, but it hides some subtle distinctions in meaning which have since been lost (e.g. compliment usually meant merely polite or conventional praise; inmate connoted an inhabitant of any sort rather than a prisoner; genius was a general word for intelligence, and did not suggest exceptional prowess; regard encompassed a feeling of genuine affection; irritation did not carry its modern negative connotation, merely excitement; grateful could also mean gratifying; to lounge meant to stroll rather than to sit or slouch; to essay mean to attempt something; etc). To Austen, and other writers of her generation, correct grammar and style (i.e. "correct" according to the dictates of Robert Lowth's "Grammar") were important social markers, and the use of non-standard vocabulary or grammar would have been seen as a mark of vulgarity to be avoided at all costs.

New ideas, new concepts and new words were introduced in the early science fiction and speculative fiction novels of Mary Shelley, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Lewis Carroll began to experiment with invented words (particularly blended or "portmanteau" words) in poems like “Jabberwocky” (1872). Chortle and galumph are two words from the poem that made the jump to everyday English, but the work is jam-packed with nonsense words as may be seen from its first few lines: “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves / Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: / All mimsy were the borogoves, / And the mome raths outgrabe”).

Mgsullivan, I am a volunteer and you are throwing a huge block of text at me. That doesn't work, sorry, no. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I do note that policy pages are basically blocks of text, so I can't really answer that. Better reply incoming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mgsullivan, thank you very much for providing these citations. If I understand correctly, you seem to have personally interpreted the source, in sentences such as:

So to characterize Frank Millet in homosexual or bisexual terms maybe overstating the relationships since it is clearly documented that Millet had a long lasting and happy marriage with his wife Elizabeth ("Lily").

– Special:Diff/897371448, Emphasis mine. This appears to be original research and is not actually given by the source.

Please also note that Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source, as anyone can edit them. For this reason, we can not cite Wikipedia articles to prove statements in other articles. This could otherwise quickly result in a "reference loop" if two articles contain incorrect information and reference each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mgsullivan, there may be a part of your edit that can be reliably verified from a secondary source: The number of children, their names, and their biography. You seem to have access to better sources than the article currently is built upon. I think we should ignore the English language interpretation above; let's focus on the possibly objectively wrong part of the article instead.

Wikipedia encourages you to be bold when editing. You are absolutely welcome to edit the article again, adding a reference with the "Cite" button of the editor. The links in my welcome message may help, and you may alternatively be interested in trying The Wikipedia Adventure, depending on which learning style you personally prefer.

If you are unsure how or if to proceed, feel free to add a message to the talk page of the article, Talk:Francis Davis Millet. For discussion about the number of children, feel free to add a comment to the "Number of children" section of the talk page. For a new topic, the "New section" button at the top of the page can be used.

Thank you very much in advance for your correction, and enjoy editing Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What about my corrections?

To Be Free you seem to be quite controlling for a "volunteer" and this system seems to be substantially complicated for corrections. As a Francis Davis Millet Scholar I made three corrections sometime ago and you asked for citations and then seem to have ignored them with you last comment being "these 'Look' like opinions." I also provided substantial content and context to my edits, and your comment was that as a volunteer it was too much for you to handle. Well I don't believe as a volunteer you have both the right or even the responsibility on an open source encyclopedia to block content from being posted because you don't want to deal with too much content or don't like the citations provided, let the users make the corrections if any are needed. So for example, on the simple edit of the fact that Wikipedia has it Wrong as to the number of Millet's children. There were 4 not 3 as it still shows. I provided both the genealogy and the citation to that genealogy and you continue to block its from being published as the correction I submitted. As to the more controversial correction of the sexual mores of the 19th century being interpreted by the current mores of the 21st century. I provided substantial content and context and the simple citations to two easily available sources. ONE being the currently posted Wikipedia on Romantic Friendship and the other to the History of the English Language. Whatever you think about it ....you don't have the responsibility or the right to block my posts from being uploaded to the Millet Wikipedia page. Let it post. Michael S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgsullivan (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mgsullivan, nice to meet you again. Please disregard my initial "volunteer" comment, which I have quickly struck through above. If I'm asking you to take the time to read guidelines, I should not deny taking time to explain questions about them. My "volunteer" comment was bad; I normally don't react like this.

Your contribution is not lost; it can be found at Special:Diff/897371448. This was a large edit that seems to be problematic, due to its lack of reliable references.

Above, you have provided two references for your edits. One of them is a Wikipedia article; we can't use Wikipedia articles as a reference. The community has agreed upon a "Wikipedia:Verifiability" policy, and one part of this policy is called "WP:REFLOOP". This part describes why using other Wikipedia articles as a reference is not a good idea.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but none of the two sources seems to be directly related to Francis Davis Millet. Using these sources for your specific edit seems to be personal interpretation. The community has agreed upon a "Wikipedia:No original research" policy. This policy contains a section called "WP:SYNTH", prohibiting the combination of multiple sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources actually says.

That all said, I agree that there is a part of your edit that we should definitely implement as soon as possible: We should indeed fix the number of children if it is wrong. If you can provide a reliable source for the existence of the fourth child, please do so. Let's fix the factual error with better sources. And let's ignore the "Romantic Friendship"/"History of the English Language" part for now: We can do this step by step. We do not need to fix everything at once; let's focus on the number of children first.

Feel free to provide references at Talk:Francis_Davis_Millet#Number_of_children. I can't find the "citation to the genealogy" in Special:Diff/897371448.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.geni.com/people/Francis-Millet/320389428450004739

Thanks for your response, as to the kids, I've added the geni.com citation shown above from their genealogy website again where I think it properly goes.

I know this is a cop out on my part, but I really am not in a position to try and take all the time it will take me to become proficient with Wikipedia editing. As I look at the system it just is too complicated for the time it will take and any further editing on my part, but I appreciate the necessity to keep content correct. I've never made an edit previously and probably never will again, since this is really the only area in which I have info to contribute. So if I've made the citation edit wrong again, I'm sorry but it is above, and possibly you or someone else can make it. If you look at Ancestry.com they have the same info as geni.com on live births, they do speculate on a 5th pregnancy which did not come to live birth. But none of the Millet scholars have any data on a 5th, in family records or other records but Edwin's birth and death at 4 months are certain and geni.com has it right. Thanks.

As to the several other language edits I made, most of them were just grammatical or for clarity and I think with general reading they will make the section better. So they can be used or not.

As to the sexual mores question. I'll just leave it too, since I understand the circular content challenges by citing Wikipedia on Romantic Friendship, someone else may provide good citations or possibly a forum, if there is one, could comment on the Romantic Friendship issues and the different views between now and the 19th century. Let me finish with the thought that the current content is disparaging to Frank Millet and decedents since the gentleman who posted the current content and his conclusions from his work as cited are also really just "personal opinions" as well. The homosexual relationship comments have no real foundation in documented fact from Millet papers and are really the author's personally "reading into history" his own opinions, even though he may cite his own writing, to the satisfaction of the Wikipedia citation standards. So I would suggest a compromise. JUST remove that paragraph from the Millet page, it really is just opinion as it currently stands and really adds nothing of merit to the history of the artist and his significant public contributions. It ought to be dropped.

Thank you for your time. I won't be able to do more for now. Hope this is enough.

Hi Mgsullivan, thank you for the detailled analysis. You seem to have correctly uncovered a conflict of interest there, and I have removed the contested paragraph. My responses can be found here:

• Talk:Francis_Davis_Millet#Number_of_children (Geni.com and Ancestry.com sadly seem to be generally unreliable)
• Talk:Francis_Davis_Millet#Homosexuality (done as requested)

Feel free to add more references to the first section, or comments to the second one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

To Be Free: I do have to chuckle about Wikipedia finding the worlds largest Geneaology resource to be "unreliable" and I know I said I was going to bow out....but the Edwin Millet's death not being recognized is troubling to me so, I hope the two new citations will satisfy the quirky rules of Wikipedia. Hopefully the Central Cemetery in East Bridgewater will do well enough...and Ms. Schafer's book, Soldier of Fortune will be considered acceptable as well. She was a decedent of Frank Millet.

Michael S.

Soon Millet’s family life was marred by an unexpected personal tragedy when Lily, Kate and the new baby contracted diphtheria.87 Lily and Kate recovered, but four-month old Edwin died on November 15.88 The loss of his infant son may have convinced Millet that it was time for a change in his life.

87 Booth and Millet, Chapter 6, p. 5, JAPM/AAA Reel 1100 note that Mrs. Millet, Kate and young Edwin contracted diphtheria. See also Sharpey-Schafer, Soldier of Fortune. p. 60; and Francis Davis

88 Birth and death dates for Edwin Austin Millet have been provided by the Central Cemetery in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, where the Millet family burial plot is located.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgsullivan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mgsullivan, where do these numbers (87, 88) come from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They are the footnote citations from Gina D'Angelo's Thesis, as listed below, but are not relevant in this case other than they provide context to the citations to the birth and death of Edwin Millet at 4 months old, which are relevant to the issue at hand, that being if there were 3 or 4 children. There were 4 and Edwin died at 4 and is buried in Mass. But I wasn't sure if the cemetery note was enough since the two leading genealogy websites in the world were considered unreliable. So I also provided the Soldier of Fortune citation. But here is the full citation for Gina's Dissertation if you want that as well. Sincerely, Michael S.

FRANCIS DAVIS MILLET - THE EARLY YEARS OF “ A COSMOPOLITAN YANKEE,” 1846-1884 Unpublished Dissertation at the City University of New York, 2004 by Gina M. D ’Angelo Volume I, pg. 226

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgsullivan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mgsullivan, I am sorry to disappoint you again. This must be a horrible first Wikipedia experience. I hope that, at least, this proves that Wikipedia – while making no guarantee of validity – is actually a very careful community in this regard. This is why people do trust Wikipedia, and we do our best to maintain its good reputation.

If I understand correctly, there are two major issues with the proposed citation.

• You need to have actually read the proposed source and have gotten your information from it; relying on indirect citations is not sufficient (WP:SAYWHERE, part of Wikipedia's guideline about citing sources)
• The source needs to have been published; "unpublished" sources are not eligible for Wikipedia articles (WP:SOURCE, part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy)

The second point also seems to apply to the Central Cemetry citation, not just the dissertation. I think that the main issue with unpublished "reliable" sources is the lack of verifiability, not a lack of reliability. There is no reasonable way for other readers of this international encyclopedia to verify the validity of an unpublished source. I trust you, but imagine I didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Edwin Millet Death and Yes it has been a sad experience

Sir: I have read the thesis, more than 500 pages of it and so can anyone if they want to go to ProQuest which is the Academic source for most Dissertations published in the US and most of the world. Generally, no PhD Thesis is "published" in the terms you are thinking. But they are publicly available at most major libraries around the world through ProQuest. Just type in the Title and author and you will find it. And anyone can buy a copy of Soldier of Fortune, on Amazon etc. and they can read that too. I also provided the Cemetery information and anyone who is interested can find the info on the family through any one of a number of cemetery web search sites. Or they can call the Cemetery in Mass. which is why I provided the info necessary. Also, I have tried to keep my own Millet scholarship out of the discussion since it seems that personal research and knowledge is also suspect in the Wikipedia sources.

So yes, this has been a very bad experience. In the future as both a professional communications/PR executive, for decades, and a Frank Millet Scholar, I will unfortunately have to carefully consider what seems to be a very suspect system and irrationally approved sources for the Wikipedia topics I read going forward.

The simple bottom line for this experience is that I now understand better how false information can so easily appear in Wikipedia and how hard it is to correct it once it is published. Sadly, Edwin Austin Millet will not be recognized as having lived or died in the "ever living internet." I can only imagine the immensity of poor or completely incorrect information that will live on forever in the internet encyclopedia that is Wikipedia.

It shows that not all things benefit from open-source wide area collaboration, as opposed to carefully researched and edited material gathered by trained and skilled individuals and teams that have often spent a lifetime, certainly a career, on finding and preserving the facts in a subject area.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgsullivan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mgsullivan, I seem to have misunderstood the word "unpublished" in your citation. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, part of Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline,

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

As a completed, publicly available PhD thesis, and as a secondary source in this regard, we can cite Gina M D'Angelo's thesis. I also searched the indirectly cited book for "Edwin" on Google Books and included a direct quote in the Wikipedia citation, as far as Google Books allowed me to. You can find the implemented edit at Special:Diff/898926617.

Fixing or removing incorrect information is important; adding new information needs to be done with care. Or, in other words,

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[2] the contribution.^[3]
[...]
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
— WP:BURDEN

Whenever you feel that false information appears in Wikipedia and there is no reliable inline citation that currently supports it, you may remove it, mentioning WP:BURDEN in your edit summary.

Replacing it by something else, however, requires reliable sources. Bad experiences have led to the creation of the "perennial sources" list; you seem to have, at one point, proposed to use some "generally unreliable" sources from that list. I am unsure if your impression about Wikipedia's accuracy would be better if I had accepted the usage of such sources.

If there is really still incorrect information present in the article, please do remove it, or ask me to remove it.

There have been many other attempts to create a large online encyclopedia, but projects such as Citizendium have failed. While it does have its problems, the "anyone can edit" philosophy is tried and trusted. Wikipedia's core content policies are meant to ensure exactly the values that we both uphold.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Edwin Edit

Thank you. The edit works. Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgsullivan (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-22

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

Changes later this week

• Big changes to the replica database will happen on 3 June. Some tools on Cloud Services will stop working if the maintainers do not update them to use the new schema. This probably affects tools that query for revisions or log entries made by a user. [240][241]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 May. It will be on all wikis from 30 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 29 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a really interesting issue of the Signpost. Worth reading. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Message by Amrohs

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for your feedback on my first wikipedia page about EQS Group. I worked on the draft based on your recommendations. Would you mind checking the page again? Draft:EQS Group

Thank you Alexander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrohs (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amrohs, to ensure a fair review, I usually do not review drafts that I have reviewed in the past. This allows you to get a third opinion easily by resubmitting and letting another reviewer have a look.

One of the sources is German, but I do not have access to it. This one here appears to be an online version, but it is located behind a paywall:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/whistleblower-sollen-per-eu-gesetz-geschuetzt-werden-16022468.html

Also, as there are 3746 pending submissions waiting for review, I do not want to encourage queue-jumping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Annabelle Chvostek page edit _ Copyright issue

Hi, thanks for all the work you do. I just edited Annabelle Chvostek's page and you just flagged it for copyright infringement. I work with Annabelle and wrote the bio myself. I'm just updating her very outdated page. How can I prove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tplanter, thank you for the clarification.

• Please have at least a short look at our conflict of interest guideline and disclose your conflict of interest at User:Tplanter.
• Please see WP:DONATETEXT for instructions how to update the website to contain the necessary license information for reuse on Wikipedia.
• Please propose changes on the talk page of the article, Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, instead of making them directly. There seem to be glaring neutrality issues with the proposed text, so please do not re-introduce promotional language into the article again. Removing incorrect information is likely fine, but new sentences should better be proposed on the talk page of the article. See Template:Request_edit for a convenient way of notifying neutral reviewers of your proposed addition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Makes sense what you say about the promotional language and conflict of interest. I'm new to this and hadn't even thought about it. I'm not getting paid, but I am helping Annabelle out with admin stuff. Should I declare that on my page? I'll work on some updates and run them by you first. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tplanter, while only "compensated" editors are forced by the Terms of Use to do so, you are nevertheless strongly encouraged to disclose such a close connection on your user page. There is no need for a specific template or text; feel free to write any text that you personally consider to be a good explanation of your connection to the article subject.

Regarding the updates, thank you for the offer – but this is not specifically about me; I am not in an authoritative position to decide alone. It would probably be a good idea to get a second reviewer's opinion by using the {{Request edit}} template at Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, instead of asking for a personal review, when you'd like to request changes. I will happily help with any technical issues that occur though, and I can answer questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, I tried to revert the page to what it was before my edits and it does not appear. Also, there's the copyright notice at the top of the page now too! Can the old version be restored? Can I not remove inaccurate info and add new, updated info to the existing text (new albums, new website,etc)? Am I banned from updating because I'm a family member? She is not a hugely popular musician and the page hadn't been updated in years.... Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tplanter, removing incorrect information is fine, but that's not what happened in Special:Diff/899444097. Instead, new text was added without a reliable source that directly supports the addition. The text was not neutral, either. Therefore, I have undone this edit.

As advised in my message above, please use the talk page of the article, Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, to request changes ({{Request edit}}), instead of making them directly to the article.

You are not "banned" from modifying the page, but our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from doing so.

The website at annabellemusic.com/bio does still not seem to contain the requested license text. Please see WP:DONATETEXT, which contains example text that you can add to the website to solve the copyright problem. Please do not, however, remove the copyright warning yourself, even if you have provided the requested text. An administrator needs to have a look at this.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. I sent the message yesterday via email to donate the text and have not heard back but, from what I understand, you're requesting me to make the text copyleft on the webpage itself, right? Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tplanter, no problem, thank you very much. A message on the website is probably much faster and a more reliable way of proving the free license status of the website text. An e-mail reply may take about 60 days. If anyhow possible, you can greatly help us by adding the text to the website. If this happens before an administrator has a look at the copyright notice, it also prevents unnecessary work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added the CC license to the page. From what I understand, I can't use it anyways, right? I'm just adding it tor prove I didn't steal it. Is that correct? Tplanter (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tplanter.

No edit on Wikipedia is gone forever; your reverted addition is still available in the revision history of the page. For this reason, it was important to prove that the old revision is not a copyright violation. This seems to have been done nicely. When you receive a ticket number in response to your email request, you may like to respond saying that you have added the license notice to the website and that the ticket can likely be closed.

We may even be able to build upon the biography, especially if this is intended to update an outdated article. However, we'll need to ensure that the text is neutral, and we'll need to provide independent, reliable citations for most statements. An official biography page can be a reliable source, but only for a very limited kind of information. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for an explanation.

Again, thank you very much for helping the community to quickly resolve this situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, ToBeFree. I see you've approved the copyright infringement removal and the new text I edited. How long does it take to go live? Why do I still see the old text and the copyright violation notice? Thank you! Tplanter (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tplanter, you're welcome. The text that I had reverted will likely not be added to the article in unmodified form, because it does not appear to be neutral, and because it may lack necessary reliable citations. However, the copyright problem seems to have been solved. An administrator will remove the notice soon; I would have done so myself, because I have added it in the first place, but I think that I can't really do so after having asked you not to do so. Let's just wait for an administrator to remove it.

Let's also wait for a reviewer to respond to your request at Talk:Annabelle Chvostek. I think the reviewer may have the same concerns as I do, so let's wait for their third opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, ToBeFree. I do not understand how my new text on Talk:Annabelle Chvostek is not neutral. It simply states facts (albums, awards, and collaborations) and has sources. I can wait for someone else to look at it, but I don't understand how her wikipedia page can say she was a child musical prodigy (which Annabelle herself says is false and somewhat embarrassing), but it is questionably neutral to say how many albums she's released, who she's worked with, and which awards she's won. May I ask what does not come across as neutral? Thank you for your help and your time.Tplanter (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tplanter, especially for taking neutrality into account. However, I am unable to find the text "prodigy" on the page. I have removed it from the page, twice, at Special:Diff/899436473 and Special:Diff/899441402. The first removal was part of my big revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I just visited the page again and the prodigy bit was (thankfully) gone. Thanks for helping me understand all this so patiently, and for all the work you do on the site.Tplanter (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tplanter, it is a pleasure to discuss with you. From the first sentence to this one – someone reverts a huge contribution and the reaction is gratefulness and factual questions. This is a rare, valuable attitude that matches the fundamental values (WP:5P) of this encyclopedia. This whole project exists because people like you decide to invest their free time into it.

I'll avoid explaining potential issues with the requested edit at the moment, because the reviewer may agree with you. If they don't, they will likely provide an explanation that would have matched mine. I can still provide additional explanation if I consider the reviewer's message to be too complicated or not detailled enough. Having a third opinion may be useful.

In the worst case future scenario that I can think of, you may be requesting many edits with all of them being declined. This can be very a discouraging experience. I'm not really assuming the worst, but I'd like to point out that this can happen. In the unlikely case that it does, please think of my words: Your approach to editing is extremely valuable, and shared only by what I personally believe to be a minority of Wikipedia's millions of editors. Some of those who do share your attitude become regular members of the community. When looking at Special:Statistics, you'll notice that only 45,781 accounts are "extended confirmed", meaning that they have made over 500 contributions to the project. Everything counts as a contribution, every typo fix, every talk page message, every revert, even on deleted pages. "Five hundred" may seem to be a lot, but is in practice reached relatively quickly by those who find an enjoyable Wikipedia activity to do in their free time.

For this reason, I'd like to point to two pages that may make you enjoy starting to become a regular contributor, completely independent of the article that you have originally started with. This is a long-term suggestion. If your time is currently occupied by family and job, you may like to come back to this advice as a pensioner/retiree. Please think of this as an open door, not a request. The relevant policy section is called WP:CHOICE. Also related are WP:IAR and WP:BOLD.

• Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure
• Wikipedia:Community portal

Wikipedia has a long-term need of editors like you. I'm not saying it's urgent; that would be overstating a currently non-existent problem. However, this may well change in the future: Wikipedia#English Wikipedia editor decline

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind :)Tplanter (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

forgive for the error...

can you add a link to the article? https://www.redemptionwhiskey.com/about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.220.10.13 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi 174.220.10.13, this seems to be advertising, which Wikipedia is not for. You'd need to provide independent references for your proposed addition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Take a slice! Kick back and relax... you've been a huge help! I've seen your hard work in IRC and I'm glad I had you under my wing to help guide you through AFC. Hope you enjoy your weekend projects. :) Snowycats (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Snowycats, you're a wonderful person. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Related multan sultan

Dear sir /mam I have added a reliable.information on multan sultan page and you kept on deleting.I am myself from multan and this is a reliable information.its sad to notice that you lack trust!You can search at facebook:Tiger and champs pakistan. It is a notable sports community of multan , really sad to see your attitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger&Champs (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• With respect, you are not a reliable source. The Facebook page of this club is also not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS for an understanding as to what we consider a reliable source. You also have a direct conflict of interest in attempting to promote this club, something which you've been warned about already. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, thank you very much; especially in busy times, I am happy about seeing experienced editors on this talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Allie Teilz page

Hi. Thank you for reinstating the AFD message on Allie Teilz's page. I'm curious as to why the other things that the vandal removed (the 'birth year based on age as of date' template and her birth year in the lead) were not re-added. You called it "challenged information" but I thought that, since it was removed during vandalism, it could be reincluded? I wanted to check because I don't want to put it back if I'm not supposed to. Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Abbyjjjj96, you're welcome, and thank you very much for asking.

I'm just very careful in this regard, and I may be overcautious. As the article is currently being discussed for deletion due to notability concerns, the sources may not be reliable enough to support this information. Not re-adding the challenged information was a decision made with WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BURDEN in mind: I personally don't want to be responsible for the publication of private data on Wikipedia; I just wanted to re-add the AfD template, so I selectively did so.

If you are absolutely sure that the information should be included in the article, you can re-add it together with a reference. However, as you have created the AfD discussion in the first place, I assume that you too are questioning the reliability of the sources. In case of doubt, I recommend not to re-add the information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining :) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, no problem. I thought I had sent you a "thank you" notification about your message to say "you're welcome", but I seem to have forgotten it. I'm now archiving this section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating TMP Worldwide's Page

Hello,

I am an employee of TMP Worldwide and I've been attempting to update outdated and inaccurate company information on behalf of TMP Worldwide, but my edits are being removed. If you look at what I'm trying to edit, I'm just making updates to basic company information. How can I go about making these necessary updates to the page?

Thank you,

Rmjpatt4 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rmjpatt4, your edits appear to have been blatantly promotional, and you appear to have been violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use, section 4, subsection "Paid contributions without disclosure". A page that describes the issue can be found at WP:PAID. You may also need to have a look at the "covert advertising" section of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline.

You should not directly edit the article anymore; please request edits on its talk page, Talk:TMP_Worldwide_Advertising_and_Communications, using the {{Request edit}} template.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Hi,

Thank you for your reply to my previous message. I will post my suggested edits to the talk page going forward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TMP_Worldwide_Advertising_and_Communications. When I submit edits to this page, does someone from wikipedia review them? How long does the approval process take? Can you explain a little bit about what the process entails?

Thanks for all your help,

Rmjpatt4 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Rmjpatt4, please provide the requested disclosure, probably best at User:Rmjpatt4. You must provide a paid editing disclosure before continuing to edit, and even before continuing to message me for anything else than technical help about adding the disclosure template.

Regarding "someone from Wikipedia", that likely does not mean what it sounds like. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and these edits are reviewed by experienced members of our volunteer community. This usually happens relatively fast, within a week or so, especially in clear cases. If detailled academic knowledge about a specific subject is necessary to process a request, it may take longer until someone reviews it. In the end, all edit requests will be reviewed.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I am obviously new to this, so thank you for explaining the process. I have added a paid disclosure to my profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmjpatt4. Is there anything else I need to add to my profile to make suggested edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TMP_Worldwide_Advertising_and_Communications?

Thanks again,

Rmjpatt4 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rmjpatt4, thank you very much. You may now request edits by clicking the link "request corrections on or suggest content" at the top of Talk:TMP_Worldwide_Advertising_and_Communications, inside the orange information box. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Special:Diff/900933898. Feel free to make a new request that is less promotional and does not read like an advertisement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No Edits has been done

No Edits has been done by me, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.87.142.185 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi 103.87.142.185, thank you very much for the clarification. Your internet service provider seems to dynamically assign IP addresses to its customers. In January 2019, someone else has made the following edits:

• Special:Diff/879807229
• Special:Diff/879807492

I have warned the person who has added this text to Wikipedia. The warning was not intended for you; the warning was directed at someone else.

You can safely ignore the "January 2019" messages on your talk page. I have now added an explanation about this, to avoid future confusion. I will also hide the outdated warnings from future users. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-24

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

Recent changes

• When you create a PDF from a page on the wiki this is now done by Proton. Before this we used Electron. It should look the same but work better. Both use Chromium. This is a different system from when you collect several articles into a book and make a PDF from them. [242][243]
• The Flagged Revisions extension now uses the standard OOUI icons. There will be additional minor fixes for positioning in the next deployment. [244]
• Bots and other scripts that do not set an identifiable User-Agent may find their requests strictly rate-limited until they identify themselves properly. [245]

Problems

• Please check if the Flagged Revisions configuration on your wiki is as you expect (or as it was a few weeks ago). If not, please report it. [246]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 12 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Cloudification

Hello,

my first submission was rejected. Can you help me what need to be changed pls?

Thx

Bedrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavrena (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vavrena, thank you for your submission. Where did you get the information for the article from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-25

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

Problems

• You will be able to read but not to edit Wikimedia Commons for 30 minutes on 19 June at 05:00 (UTC). This is to fix a hardware problem. [247]

Changes later this week

• MIDI files can soon be played without the Score extension. You can then add them with [[File:Filename.midi]]. Later override_midi and override_audio will stop working. Instead you will need to add the MIDI file below the music score. [248]
• A new video player will soon replace the old one. You will be able to enable it as a beta feature in your preferences. It will later be enabled for everyone if there are no big problems. [249]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 June. It will be on all wikis from 20 June (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Some gadgets and user scripts still use the old wgEnableAPI and wgEnableWriteAPI values. These values are always true. They will soon be removed. This might break the gadgets and scripts. You should fix your gadgets to not use these values. [250]

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

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Message by Furnituresweden

Hi, is there a problem with me editing the page about Arne Norell? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furnituresweden (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Furnituresweden, yes, likely. Are you, for example, being paid for your contributions? Do you have a conflict of interest? Please carefully read the message on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No I'm not being paid, but Arne Norell was my grandfather and it makes me sad seeing his legacy being so poorly depicted with such a poor biography and bad photos. Why did you remove my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furnituresweden (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Furnituresweden

No I'm not being paid, but Arne Norell was my grandfather and it makes me sad seeing his legacy being so poorly depicted with such a poor biography and bad photos. The only thing I want is for a proper biography to be written (I have the best resource - his daughter Marie, who is my mother). Please let me know what I need to change in the edit I did for it to stay there. Was something wrong with the photos? I only want to carry on my grandfather's legacy and the designs and the company he established.

Furnituresweden

Hello? Can you please help me? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, hi, please give me a moment. I'm currently trying to get help by experienced Wikimedia Commons users to determine the copyright status of your uploads. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Swedenfurniture

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Swedenfurniture

There isn't even a photo of my grandfather Arne Norell in the current wikipedia page. If you need a resource for the photo I can resource our family photo-album or the company website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, three pages you may like to skim while waiting for a proper response: WP:OR, commons:COM:PCP, commons:COM:Licensing. I'll need at least an hour for a response, perhaps days or a week for a deletion discussion if the status is unclear. You may like to request edits on the talk page of the article by using {{Request edit}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, there is now a discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Blue46789. Let's wait for it to come to a conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by ToBeFree

Blue46789, there seem to be multiple issues with the edits that I have undone in Special:Diff/899966538.

• The removed text does not contain citations. Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable. Especially claims such as "he was known for" and about his "success" need to come from independent, reliable sources. Not from the company's website, not from a press release.
• The removed text may be, at least partially, original research. Your above-mentioned "best resource" is not a published article or book. We must not base a Wikipedia article solely on her personal knowledge. Also, where do the "two examples of his influence" come from, and why is "Sirocco" one of these two? This, and the allegedly won award, would need to be reliably referenced.
• The removed text does not appear to be neutral. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. As a family member of the article subject, you are very unlikely to include negative information, if there is any. You are relatively likely to, even unintentionally, cherry-pick the best things to say about your grandfather.

Per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. Instead, you may like to create a userspace draft to rewrite the article, and submit your revised version for review.

Regarding the images, even those which are currently part of the article, these may need to be deleted, at least temporarily. The designer of the depicted chairs has not died over 70 years ago, so his heirs may still own rights to the design. It may be necessary for all heirs to send a free license release to Wikimedia Commons's OTRS team. Before doing so, please wait for the deletion discussion to reach a conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Swedenfurniture

Thank you for your answer, but to be honest I find all of this somewhat ridiculous.

I agree that perhaps my text was too flattering having mentioned words such as "success", but then how do you measure success? Can a Wikipedia article claim Mozart was a success when he died penniless? I would say Mozart was a success and some would agree and some would not. Do you mean only the author of a book knows what success is and the rest of us have no clue? My grandfather built his own business from nothing. I would call that being somewhat successful and I don't think that's just my opinion.

You're also saying that my mother is not the best resource. You're claiming a better resource would be a book or an article? But where do you think this so-called "more reliable resource" received it's information about Arne Norell from? My mother and the people who knew him of course. My grandfather is for example mentioned in the Swedish National Encyclopedia. I can email you a photo of the encyclopedia and the article since I'm holding it my hand as I'm typing. They made an interview with my mother to write that article, and you're saying the article is more reliable than my mother who lived close to Arne Norell for all her young life? Went on trips together with him, talked with him and knew exactly what inspired him?

I'm also holding his award in my own hands and would love to send you a photo. Could we please continue this nonsense via email instead of out in the open?

I'm happy to remove everything I've written about his "success" and so on. I know you think you are making everyone a favor, but you have made me very sad today. I'm only a grandchild wanting to carry on my grandfather's legacy in the best way. And I don't see why you people seem to enjoy making that work more difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add one more thing,

You're saying that Wikipedia needs the information to be verifiable and that there are no citations in my removed text? But how can I (or anyone for that matter) quote something that has not yet been written? But to start writing a correct biography of a person when no books/articles are written, don't you start with the people who knew him the best? When there are no books or articles to turn to? Isn't that how all biographies start? Unfortunately, not so much has been written about my grandfather, but that is what I'm trying to change. None of the information I wrote is incorrect or false. But some of it I can only verify from my mother and grandmother or from articles based on interviews with my mother/grandmother.

Also, you're saying that a Wikipedia article about a person cannot be written by a family member? I also find this ridiculous because the text that has been on Wikipedia about Arne Norell for many, many years was written by my brother. And the source he is citing is the information they received from my mother. If it hasn't been a problem for so many years, why is it a problem now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, thank you very much for your detailled responses.

The Wikipedia community has had bad experiences such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. While that biography was about a living person, to which even stricter rules apply (WP:BLP), we do try to ensure neutrality and verifiability in all articles.

To ensure integrity, the Wikipedia community agrees to insist that:

• Wikipedia articles should contain only verifiable information from published, reliable sources (WP:V),
• Wikipedia does not publish original research (WP:OR), and
• Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

These are our three core content policies, which complaining about to me as a single editor is unlikely to lead anywhere, so please don't. It is not for me to decide whether this is "ridiculous" or not.

The conflict of interest guideline exists for what I personally believe to be good reasons, but if that's not compelling, let's just accept that it exists.

That all said, you are welcome create an userspace draft. It will be reviewed by an experienced reviewer, giving you a third opinion about this matter. I will abstain from reviewing it, but I will happily help you with the technical steps if there are any technical questions about this process. I will also happily explain how the complex policies and guidelines work. I won't participate in an argument about their validity, however.

I do not intend to make anyone sad, and I sincerly hope that any sadness is not caused by me personally, but if at all by learning about fundamental principles of Wikipedia. These are not meant to make anyone sad either, but if that's the issue, that would relieve me and is likely to cease naturally over time.

A more positive experience may be editing articles without a conflict of interest. The following three pages may be a good starting point:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars (as an introduction)
• Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure (as a tutorial)
• Wikipedia:Community portal (as a steppingstone into the world of Wikipedia.)

Despite all the frustration and disagreement, I hope that the community's position is at least somehow understandable. Please try to imagine an online encyclopedia of this size that does not take measures to ensure verifiability of its content; please try to imagine how the article about your grandfather could look like if we didn't deal with policy violations. In the end, it is you who benefits, and humanity as a whole. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me, which I think you should since you're the one who initiated this process.

You're right in some parts. Arguing about this isn't going to lead anywhere, and Wikipedia should have rules and principles. But I tend to respect rules that fulfill their intended purpose. Perhaps, in this case, the principles are not wrong but how you decided to implement them was not to "humanities best benefit." Right now the end result of you following these principles is a wikipedia-page about my grandfather with not even a picture of him, less information about his life and photos of his design taken by an unverifiable third-party. How can you be sure the photos in the current article actually depict my grandfather's true design? There are many fake copies out there and as a family member, I'm really good at pointing out the fake ones. But according to the principles of Wikipedia I should not be involved. Rather an anonymous person with an iPhone-camera is better to judge. Yes, I find this ridiculous.

I will upload the photos again because I can guarantee you they are his true design, and the photo of my grandfather is also correct. I hope referencing the company website for the photos will be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Several of the photos I uploaded have been requested for deletion. The photo of Arne Norell that I uploaded, for example, is the original photo I scanned into my computer. I have full permission from my family to use this photo however I wish. What can I do to avoid it being deleted? How can I reference this photo since it's not in any book/article?

Thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done some more editing. Before you remove all my work this time I would appreciate it if you could first try and tell me about any possible issues you might find in the text. And maybe we can work them out together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue46789, thank you very much for your new messages. I am a bit negatively surprised about the undiscussed re-addition of unreferenced original research after all these explanations. To get a third opinion on the matter, instead of undoing your changes, I have started a discussion at WP:COIN#Arne Norell. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This was incorrect, see below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your reply.

Which information is unreferenced? Did you see the new resources I added including the Swedish National Encyclopedia? In there it is stated that Arne Norell was inspired by Danish design and that ‘sirocco’ is an example of it. As I see it all the information I’ve written is clearly sourced from the sources I’ve provided and the photos are taken by me personally of furniture designed by Arne Norell. The photo of Arne Norell is an original photo owned by me and my mother passed down from my grandmother. I don’t see what is the issue?

Kind regards, Philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, I'm sorry, that was my fault. I did not see the reference section nor its addition to the page on my phone. I'll have a closer look at the article content to see if there are any additional tips I can give, in, say, 5 hours or so. You did nicely add references that may very well be reliable enough to satisfy all above-mentioned requests for neutrality and verifiability. If you still would like to have a third opinion on the matter afterwards, there is a process at WP:3O that we can ask for if discussion comes to a standstill. I believed this to be the case, but it isn't. You have read the above concerns and made edits that are meant to solve the mentioned problems. This looks good. Thank you very much. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes me so happy. I'm also sorry if I overreacted. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue46789 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789, I do have one request. Could you use the editor's "Cite" button to add inline references? This allows others to see which statement comes from which source, and is normally required if there have been concerns about verifiability (WP:BURDEN).

As I do not have access to the Swedish National Encyclopedia article, I can't verify the statements myself, but this is explicitly fine and allowed (WP:PAYWALL); it does not diminish the quality of your source.

Regarding the images, this isn't easy. It does not even seem to be clear if "your family" actually completely owns the copyright to the images. Your intended usage would, to my personal understanding (I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice!), require that both the designer and the photographer (!) are both (or have both been) members of your family, did not have any other children who (partially?) inherited rights, and that all heirs explicitly agree to release the work under a free license by sending permission to Wikimedia Commons's OTRS team. If a company employee or friend made these images, your family may not actually possess the necessary rights. I think you should ask an experienced copyright lawyer about this before uploading these images. All we can do is being cautious and (temporarily) deleting images with an unclear copyright status. This deletion can be undone at any time, but you may need to seek professional legal advice to be able to argue convincingly in favor of undeletion. Trying to convince a cautious community in an argument about copyright without having experience in that legal area may be impossible; don't take this lightly, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The images have been deleted. If you require further advice regarding image copyright, I personally believe that you should ask a professional copyright lawyer to educate and assist you. Neither Wikipedia nor the volunteer community can provide legal advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:31.205.11.76

Hello, thank you for helping me on my talk page regarding the actions of @CLCStudent:. I've asked User:CLCStudent for an explanation of their actions on three occasions now, the third being directly on their own talk page now that it has been unprotected - yet they have edited over 30 times since my message and hence have ignored me again. How do I go about escalating this issue? Surely it is bad practice for this user to continuously ignore me - I'd really appreciate an explanation as I'm new to all of this! Thanks 31.205.11.76 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi 31.205.11.76, you seem to be complaining about the removal of broken ping code from your user talk page (Special:Diff/902592383). Broken because all four attempts lacked a signature and could thus never have pinged anyone (see Help:Notifications#Alerts for instructions). Also, pinging users without any message can be considered to be disruptive. I advice against escalating this issue. If you choose to ignore my advice, please see WP:Dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a new editor and I was trying to contact the person who had blocked this IP address previously - I've never edited Wikipedia and I'm under the impression that I have been assigned this IP. I wasn't sure how to respond to the user and was slowly figuring it out on my own talk page, to have that user undo it without explanation is a little discouraging. I'm not happy that they're ignoring me and all I'm asking is for an explanation from them. I'd really like to go ahead with escalating the issue as the fact that they seem to be a vandal fighter suggests that they wish to become an admin one day, and from my reading, I understand that such issues need to be flagged when people place a request for adminship. 31.205.11.76 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, 31.205.11.76. To me, the "vandal fighter", "request for adminship" reasoning appears at least in part to be demanding revenge and – as explicitly requested – escalation. However, our dispute resolution processes are likely not meant to be used in this way. For example, WP:ANI has been mentioned in Special:Diff/902667105, but that venue is "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."^[1] The ANI header also contains advice about dealing with incivility, linking to Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

That all said, I agree that CLCStudent should probably take the time to provide at least a minimal response, even if it is just something like "In my opinion, WP:DENY applies here". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• 2019-06-20T18:38:30 Bbb23 blocked 31.205.11.76 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{CheckUser block}})
• Special:Diff/902714862: ANI thread closed

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Lickey Incline

No, it wasn't a test, and I wasn't messing. It should say 'section' because the signal was at the summit of the incline, to the north of the station. Raising the calling-on arm allowed the bankers (only) to follow a train down the bank 'on visual' before it had reached Bromsgrove. Best Regards. Chris 79.75.225.64 (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Chris, thank you for your correction. The change undone in Special:Diff/900472494 seemed to append a number to a word, something that happens many times per day as a joke or test edit. I didn't realize that you wanted to correct the word, or I would simply have removed the "8". Sorry for interrupting you; I will now remove the incorrect notice from your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Message by Andyboy390

Sadly, I am having terrible difficulties in finding 'a reliable source'.

Just what is that?

Wikipedia is too difficult for me to understand so I feel I must abandon my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboy390 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Andyboy390, Special:Diff/837724845 was over a year ago!

But now that you're asking, where did you get your information from? What is your source? As you likely didn't just make that information up, you seem to have read it somewhere – all you need to do is to say where you did. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank You for the help

Thanks for the help. It seemed like a good idea to add his social accounts that he seems to manage. I'll look over the guidelines so I can minimize mistakes.

Thanks IdigiMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigenousMan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi IndigenousMan, no worries! The specific part of the guideline you may be looking for is WP:ELMIN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much, Path slopu!

That's a nice beginning of an editing session. I'll add the star to my userpage. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Help to save DJ Kelblizz article

Please administrators should do something about saving DJ Kelblizz article from getting deleted It's so unfair that a newly approved article be considered for deletion.please everyone should help save these article — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelblizzRecords (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

KelblizzRecords, please have a lool at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kelblizz. The issue seems to be a lack of notability, which is explained in an (over)simplified form at WP:42. In a nutshell, there is nothing a Wikipedia editor can do to save this article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing Lori Gruen's Page

Hi ToBeFree,

Thanks so much for the message you sent me. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so it was really helpful to have your guidance and suggestions. Although I am working for Lori Gruen, the edits I want to make are factual, not opinion based. In addition to the edits I made today, there is a significant amount of information that I plan to add to Lori Gruen's page (all of which I have citations for) which is all factual merely to improve the current lack of information on her current page. However, I understand how, by working for her, even if my edits are factual and not opinion based, I could still have a conflict of interest.

As I mentioned, there are further edits that I want to make for Lori Gruen. If you would be willing, I'd really appreciate you proof reading for me. What is the best way for me to send you a draft of my proposed work?

You also mentioned that my work is likely to get deleted because of my conflict of interest. I have checked the page and as of now (over two hours since publication) the edits I made are still up. How can I find out if my edits will be deleted? Also is there anything I can do retroactively to make them more credible so they will not be removed?

Lastly, in your message you mentioned Wikipedia's policies on edits made for reimbursement. Lori Gruen will be paying me for these edits, so I want to make sure I am in full compliance with these policies. I understand that I have to disclose this information. How am I supposed to disclose this in order to be in compliance with the policy?

Thanks so much for all your help. I really appreciate it.

IndiaFDixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiafdixon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indiafdixon, thank you very much for the detailled explanation. Welcome to Wikipedia.

As the very first step, regarding the paid contributions, please carefully read WP:PAID. Afterwards, adding the template {{Paid}} to your user page at User:Indiafdixon may be the easiest way to ensure a proper disclosure for all edits on all pages.

Please note that a lack of information is perfectly fine. Incorrect information needs to be removed as soon as possible, and when carefully doing so (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects), you may do so yourself. Adding new information, however, requires reliable, published sources. Please carefully separate these two tasks: Removing incorrect text is fine, adding new text comes with a burden of verifiability.

To easily create a draft for proofreading, the page Help:Userspace_draft can be very helpful. After reading the instructions, simply add "Lori Gruen" to the field and click the blue button.

I'm not saying it is "likely", but it is possible for your edits to be undone if they do not meet, for example, Wikipedia's neutrality or verifiability standards. It may sound counterintuitive at first, but these policies exist to protect your client from defamation. Due to negative experiences such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, the community is now very careful in this regard. I'm sure that if you provide this explanation to your client, she will understand the community's prudence.

The addition of external links in the article body may be seen as advertisement and should probably be undone. It is important to maintain a neutral point of view; writing about websites is often done for promotion rather than improvement of the encyclopedia.

The removal of an entire section that (only looking at the page code) appeared to be well-referenced may be problematic. In accordance with WP:BURDEN, an editor may restore the section if it is verifiable and accurately referenced. I won't judge, I didn't re-add that section, I didn't undo your edits. I'm just saying it may happen – and to avoid this section from being re-inserted, you may like to explain its removal at Talk:Lori Gruen. If the information was factually wrong, do not quote it when explaining its removal. If it was factually correct, you'll need to provide good policy-based reasons for its removal. Hint: WP:UNDUE?

If someone disagrees with you, please do not directly edit the article to respond to their disagreement. Rather, use the talk page (Talk:Lori Gruen) to explain your point. This avoids edit warring.

One last to keep in mind may be WP:PAYTALK. Reviewers and other volunteers are more likely to help if they are able to do so easily and quickly.

Thank you very much in advance, and good luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)