Dear Sirs and Madams, I have read all of 'Wikipedia:Appealing a block' and 'Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks' and would like to be unblocked please. I understand that in the past I have been vandalistic with my talk entries, due to my frustration at the difficulties encountered when trying to edit the WP article about me. I recognize, understand and accept I have acted wrongly and apologize and wish to have access to editors in the future. I solemnly promise not to write anything unfit again and, now that I have learned so much more from editors about your etiquette, will not contact you unless it is essential. I realize in fact there is no benefit to continually wanting to update the article and accept that it is alright as it is. Thank you. EddieLeVisco (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Between the improvements in the editor's interaction, and the very beneficial involvement of Valereee, I think an unblock is worthwhile at this time. I should note for clarity that I'm not placing any formal editing restrictions, but I would advise Eddie not to have more than one editing request open on any given topic (though I also advise that for anyone making edit requests). Please do ask Val, or other users, for help if you have concerns - waiting until it is "essential" is not always the best strategy. Best of luck with your future editing, both in text and pictures. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EddieLeVisco:, I am willing to at least start considering this. To start, would you be okay with two specific editing restrictions: an absolute restriction from editing the article and a limit to a single open edit request related to yourself anywhere on the site (preferably that would be the Talk Page, but it would also apply to requests made to an individual user, such as Valereee, or a Help Desk)?
Please note, I'm still considering aspects related to your comments regarding editors at the Teahouse etc, but will consider it further.
Yuendumu Gold 01Nosebagbear, I think Ed's understanding of how Wikipedia works is still evolving, but it is evolving. In my opinion, his contributions at Photographs by Ed Gold alone, like this one, are enough to try to get him the whole way there. We aren't yet using this image anywhere, but wow. It's beautiful. If I could figure out where best to use it, I'd nominate it for Picture of the Day. But I digress. I am willing to try to keep working with this person. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Valereee: :@Nosebagbear: Thank you very much Valereee, you are a good person. My understanding is indeed still evolving and thank you very much for your help getting me there. Last year I was asked by the editor for The Signpost to write for the newsletter about the problems I have faced navigating Wikipedia editors and I did indeed write an article. But my article was then edited so much, and in such a way, that the whole exercise became counter productive and an exact example of what I was writing about. So the article was never published, which I regret as it would have been illuminating. The first editor who wished to help me 'Mike Turnbull' proposed I submit this same photo for 'Photo of the Day' and at that time Mike uploaded many hundreds of my images to Wikimedia Commons and I do not know what became of those images, which I voluntarily donated. Thank you for your kind thoughts to help Valereee. I would like to be unblocked obviously but I feel it isn't worth my effort. Keep up the good work Valereee, you are a star in a dark void.EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)EddieLeVisco (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)185.60.5.17 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I don't think EddieLeVisco needs formal restrictions – just to recognize that we're unpaid volunteers who are editing Wikipedia in our spare time. Yelling at unpaid volunteers doesn't make them work harder – it just makes them want to stop volunteering. I worked kind of hard to get Compassion in World Farming to at least a presentable state. I never heard of it before, and (obviously) I have no connection to it. The article was nominated for deletion, but it seemed like an encyclopedic topic to me. Nobody else has touched that article in years, really. Pretty much everything that you see in that article was written by me in February 2014 – a little more than 7 years ago! But that's the downside of Wikipedia; it's not staffed by professional researchers, so if some random dude on the internet thinks your article is "good enough" once it's no longer in danger of being deleted, that could very well be where it stays for the next 10 years. If someone wants to update it, they can. Or, if they have a conflict of interest, they can post to the article's talk page and make it very easy for me to address their concerns ("Please add this BBC article to the article, which details our major activities in 2021 so far. The proposed wording is: 'In 2021, CIWF protested 3 things and won 2 major awards.' Thank you." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, if NRP doesn't feel formal editing restrictions are needed then I will instead ask Eddie whether you think you are confident of your ability to "drop the stick" in circumstances that you can't either improve an article at the pace you desire (either yourself or by readily willing others)? I'm actually looking for a serious answer with self-insight here, and don't require (or want) oaths to an impossible standard - none of us are perfect when handling issues like this, because they're not ideal circumstances. But as an unblocked editor, taking care early on is all the more useful. To note - this is more on whether it would be safer for all involved to unblock with editing limits, rather than whether to unblock at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your time :@Nosebagbear: I will seriously "drop the stick". The self-insight you seek from me is that I will not disrespect editors, nor call on them to change or edit the article page about me. I have learnt my lessons here, communicating with the editors, and now have a fairly good grasp of what you do and can/cannot edit. I now also understand, more or less, what the function of Wikipedia is, and that it is not important, necessary or always possible to have the article constantly and factually, brought up to date. Originally it was important to me to have the article complete, and include every one of my achievements. Now I have come to accept that it will never be complete and that in fact, it shouldn't matter so much to me. For example, only 4 of my books have been mentioned in the article, out of 58, but now I realize, as with every aspect of Wikipedia, that every fact has to be verified and at least a third or fourth party source needed. My frustrations have revolved around, approximately, 8 out of 10 editors making more problems when taking it upon themselves to 'edit' and I felt the entire situation to be counter productive and defeatist. But now I put this down to the editors commitment to achieving the very best result they can, and what I saw as pedantic behaviour, is in fact professionalism and upholding WP's very high level of quality. In the future I will only write here, to either contest an addition to the article that I feel is incorrect or to ask an editor if they can edit the article to include any recent facts that are significant and even then, I will only make one 'ask' at any one time and no more than that. I hope this is transparent enough of me for you to see that I am apologetic and will not need any rope to hang myself with as the lessons have been learned. EddieLeVisco (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
For the record, I uploaded 140 pictures, which thanks to them being categorised on Commons, are now visible in one place, already linked above by valereee, namely ALL the available photographs by Ed Gold. It would be a trivial matter to use the existing OTRS ticket to upload more images through my account and I would be prepared to do so if other editors wanted them for articles. Sadly, hardly any of these have been used despite my drawing them to the attention of some Projects. Yuendumu Gold 01.jpg could simply go in Yuendumu if anyone were bothered to put it there. Note that I had a disagreement with some editors at Talk:Ed Gold. I said there that as he is a photographer and these images illustrate his work it is natural that readers would expect to see some in that article. For example, Karimeh Abbud has a whole gallery of out-of-copyright images. Unusually for a BLP, we have correctly licensed images of the work and could include them in a gallery like this, say at the bottom of the article, with a suitable title such as "Portraiture by Gold*.
Others disagreed and stated that each individual photograph would have to be notable, which I found ridiculous since all agree that Gold himself is notable, or there would be no article! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think they're saying that they have to be notable - there isn't a photo notability rule, for example. However, usually photos do have to be "tied" to something in the article (in content terms), though there's certainly exceptions. If you're willing to do some textual work, one possibility would be to look for secondary source reviews of some of the photoexhibitions. Where they exist, you could write a few lines about it, then add an applicable photo. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) @Michael D. Turnbull: I wouldn't cite the Karimeh Abbud as an example of what to do here because things like WP:OTHERIMAGE, WP:OTHERCONTENT, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The nature of Wikipedia means that lots of edits are made over the years that probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. The editors making those edits are for the most part doing so in good faith, but in many cases the edits aren't improvements. The nature of Wikipedia also means that sometimes many of these edits can go unnoticed for years without being properly assessed. Going unnoticed for so long doesn't make them "good edits", it just means that nobody noticed them. Many times these articles only get noticed when someone (like you did above) tries to use an article in an "other stuff" type of argument. The Abbud article has a number of problems that need to be addressed, and one of these (at least in my opinion) is that big image gallery; not only is it out of place layout wise, it's also not really in accordance (again in my opinion) with WP:NOTGALLERY.Ideally, there should be a contextual connection between image and article content that just goes beyond the image being something created by the subject of the article. The image should support what's written in the article and this can be done either directly (with content specifically about the image itself) or indirectly (with content about a special technique, style, event, etc. that the image illustrates). The problem with image galleries (like the one in the Abbud articles and the one you seem to be describing above that was in the Gold article), particularly large image galleries, is that the relationship between article content and image is almost never clear and the gallery has almost a photo album feel to it. It is much better (again in my opinion) to select a few significant images from the subjects career that correspond (more or less) directly to what's written in the article and place those images near the relevant article content. Any images which are not used can be then linked to using a link like Template:Commons category because the role of Commons is actually to be sort of a giant photo album. When dealing with images and before adding them to any Wikipedia articles, the first thing to figure out is whether the image is licensed as non-free content or free content. Non-free content has it's own separate policy that goes beyond WP:IUP and this makes such images much harder to use; it's still possible to use non-free images, but there are more restrictions placed on their use than there are placed on free ones. So, it's much easier to work with freely licensed images for licensing reasons, but that fact that something is freely licensed doesn't mean (again in my opinion) that it's OK to automatically assume that it can and should be added to as many articles as possible in as many ways as possible.Perhaps some of Gold's images have been particularly acclaimed (i.e. won awards) or otherwise have received coverage in the reliable sources. If there are any of those, then they would be the ones I'd first consider for inclusion. Perhaps there are some that help illustrate any specific technique or style he's known for and these could also be considered for inclusion. There might even be some images that cover both "types", which would kill two birds with one stone, and these might be worth discussing. Images are like textual content in that when any disagreements over their use in article usually needs to be resolved via WP:DR and it's the WP:ONUS of the person wanting to add the image to establish a consensus for doing so. Except for copyright related issues like non-free content, disagreements over image use is not too different from a disagreement over article text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much to Mike Turnbull and Valereee for your humanity and support. Mike Turbull's line: "Others disagreed and stated that each individual photograph would have to be notable, which I found ridiculous since all agree that Gold himself is notable, or there would be no article!" is why I got myself blocked in the first place. Because of my frustration at the ridiculous. I don't want to say too much here now as I have promised to drop the stick, but since this is still an ongoing subject I would like to point out that it is because of conflicting editor's objections and (seemingly) intentional problem making that caused me to be vandalistic. Now, all I can say is that you must collectively do what you think is best. I have over 120 newspaper stories on my website that citate most of the work I have made, that has yet to be mentioned on the WP article about my work. This is why I am frustrated and why I now publish a commercial quarterly magazine for sale in the UK and overseas, so that I can get my work seen, as it isn't being seen here at WP/WM Commons. But I have learned that it is no longer important that I have been deemed to be 'notable', despite there being a lack still of proof of why I am considered notable. Why notable? Because of the meaningful images I have taken? What images? I rest my case. Please don't block me again for saying this, I am not being rude or disrespectful. I understand that to type into the article that I have done something, you need verifiable proof, well, I have that proof, and also all of my work has reasoning behind it, maybe not academic reasoning, but nonetheless still notable. So why not use it for others to gain something from? I am happy for all of my work to go to Wikimedia Commons as it is worthwhile.EddieLeVisco (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Valereee: Dear Valereee, I hope you are well. It has been such a long time since I have written here that I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I have since been unblocked and I am no longer an angry man but working very hard at my quarterly magazine, that is now on Issue 07. I am here to ask you for some help please. Issue 07 of Positive Futures magazine: https://www.mmslondon.co.uk/shop/p/positive-futures-magazine will be a special issue about Ukraine. Usually this commercial magazine, which is utterly beautiful and worthy of collection and mention on the Wikipedia article about me, documents living 'off-grid' but Issue 07 will use photos I took in Ukraine in 2011 when I was invited by 'Weekly UA' media to document the Welsh heritage of Donetsk. I am using photos from Kyiv and Donetsk, from 2011, but right now am interviewing people in Kyiv, Lyiv and Donetsk about what is happening there and it is now being revealed to me that the mainstream media is not reporting the truth about what is happening and why Putin invaded. I can give more details if you wish but that is not why I am here, it is not to kick the hornets nest, but instead to ask you for help as I am trying to track down a man in Donetsk, a famous blacksmith, to further interview him following me taking photos of him in 2011. A search of his name Sergey Fedorovich Kaspruk brings up a Wikipedia Commons page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sergey_Kaspruk which shows, to my sadness, that he died only recently on 07 February 2022. I am writing because 1) his death is recorded on Wikipedia Commons so 2) I ask all of you good and thoughtful editors to help me find out if this is really true, and what his cause of death is. Please help me, because if this news is recorded on Wikipedia Commons, then it must be true, and of course I am saddened to hear of his passing. Not only was he a lovely man, but he gave me an entire afternoon in 2011, to be photographed and show me his work, explain his Cossack heritage, and drive me and my translator out into the countryside around Donetsk. I was really hoping to find him online and interview him for Issue 07 of Positive Futures, so need confirmation of his passing, so I need not search for him any further. Even though I knew him only for an afternoon, such was our meeting that it left a profound memory and I will be happy to share my photos of him with you. Also, I am concerned that the truths I am uncovering about the war may well put others in danger and perhaps even myself? The British Library is now collecting my magazine, and I have newspaper proof of its existence, so wonder if you might mention it in the Wiki article about me yet? And please know that I am truly repentant about my earlier rantings that almost got me blocked. Life now finds me grey, aching and feeling old living out of a tent all year round, which I do not complain about, as it is my choice to be an artist. Enough of my waffle, what of Sergey Fedorovich Kaspruk please anyone? EddieLeVisco (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi Mike Turnbull (talk) and other good editors, thanks for your continued kind help and input. I am about to go to Europe for 2 months to get more material for my quarterly magazine 'Positive Futures': www.newsstand.co.uk/positivefutures. It has been going since 01 November 2020 and I am still regularly publishing it on time every 3 months (7 issues have now been published with No.8 out on 01 August).
I am writing to ask if anything else can be added to the article of my work about this magazine please? Many people comment that there is no proper mention of 'Positive Futures' magazine on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gold
The magazine is now a registered limited company - Company number: 13565544 and obviously it is a serious and professional publication, now with 120 pages and the most recent issue is about Ukraine with 9 current interviews which are most compelling.
Please can you suggest how Positive Futures magazine can be integrated into the Wikipedia page article of my work because each issue has its own ISBN, and now ISSN number and is collected by The British Library. (Also, on my website I have some 60 publications that have been officially published with ISBN's. Why are only 4 of my books mentioned on the Wikipedia article about my work please? As I have 60 professional publications. The first 3 publications on the Wikipedia article about my work are commercially published but the others here: www.edgold.co.uk/shop are equally relevant).
Thank you very much Cordless Larry. Would it be possible to put a blue hypertext link for 'Positive Futures' to https://store.magalleria.co.uk/products/positive-futures?variant=37125952733351 ? This is the ONE and only shop that the magazine is available from anywhere. It's a reliable specialist magazine shop in the city of Bath, UK and they really support the magazine. It should be for sale via Magalleria for a long time in the future. I will publish Issue No.8 on 01 August, so I am still working hard at producing it. Thank you. EddieLeVisco (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Dear Sirs/Ma'am. I hope you are all well. I am writing to kindly ask how a person can get a Wikipedia page please. Today I met at a corporate meeting a gentleman who has an 'Everipedia' page: https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/daniel-shakhani and he would like to have a Wikipedia page for himself. I said I would ask you what is involved. Does a third party who is unknown to him have to put forward his name as a person whose work is 'notable'? Thank you for your time EddieLeVisco (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Sirs/Ma'am, 4 of my published books are listed on the WP page about me, Ed Gold. I have published many more books than this, with ISBN / ISSN numbers, so the list is at present, incomplete. Is there anyway please, to include more publications so the books named (and also magazines) are up to date. Thank you EddieLeVisco (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey, Eddie. What we like to see is discussions of the books in reliable sources, such as reviews. If you can find them, you can add them to the article talk in a new section at Talk:Ed Gold. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Sirs/Ma'am, in 2011 I was invited to Ukraine by media company 'Weekly UA' to document Welsh business man John Hughes' legacy in Donetsk (see Wikipedia article about my work which mentions about my visit to Donetsk) [John Hughes has a posthumous Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hughes_(businessman)].
and 3) I just published to YouTube a 3 minute trailer about the Australian man who has been in Ukraine for 30 years, and who has started up a circular economy and pyrolysis plant in Kaharlyk. If you would like to view the trailer, see here: [5]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLG6QywbeTM
Are you able to include all of the above 3 points to the Wikipedia article about my work please? Also, I am trying to get national and international press interested in this story, despite the powers that be, not wanting to publish positive stories, with answers to the world's plastic waste problems (The oil companies control everything). The Colchester Gazette will do a follow up story soon about my visit to Ukraine, even though British Citizens are advized by the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office not to travel to Ukraine due to the Russian invasion. Do any of you have contacts in the press at all? This is a worthwhile story and deserves publicity.
Hello —valereee and Nosebagbear and other helpful editors. Are you there please - and can you respond to my query, above, from 21 June 2023? (The Colchester Gazette will be doing a follow up story soon about the pyrolysis project here in Kaharlyk, Ukraine. I am leaving Kaharlyk tomorrow, 30 June for a meeting in Kyiv, and then will ride back to the UK this Saturday. In August 'Suspilne Media', Ukraine's Public Broadcasting company want me to return so they can film me hosting a TV documentary about the Kramatorsk shellings)EddieLeVisco (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey, Eddie! I'll take a look. For future reference, it's best to post this at the talk page of the article. Sorry, no contacts in the press. Valereee (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Valereee Thank you Valeree, it's been a while since I wrote here, please tell me how to post at the Talk page (I thought this was the talk page?). Thanks for taking a look. To re-cap. I have 2 media stories about Ukraine and a 3 minute trailer. One more paper story will be written soon by The Colchester Gazette, as a follow-up. I'm leaving Ukraine this Saturday for the UK and should be back in a month to be on camera for a documentary TV program by Suspilne Media about the Kramatorsk shellings which killed children EddieLeVisco (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can post at Talk:Ed Gold using this template (Just copy the whole thing, paste it into a new section there, and replace the stuff in ALL CAPS with whatever you're suggesting we add or change, the reason for the change, the references supporting the changes):
{{request edit}}
Specific text to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST
The stuff between the brackets is a template that automatically adds your post to the list of requested edits, which means many other editors will see it. When you simply post a request without the template, your request may or may not ever be even noticed. And using the suggested format makes it easy for other editors to see exactly what you are asking to have done. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please not I have deleted my website and my domain name (www.edgold.co.uk) now links to my Facebook page where all of my work has been posted: www.facebook.com/ed.gold.5621 EddieLeVisco (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey, Ed! That was written by you, so we'd only be able to use it for noncontroversial biographical facts about you. Birth year or place, etcetera. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Valereee Thank you for your replies Valeree. I am sorry, where is the 'article talk' page, please can you direct me, I have looked around and it isn't obvious to me. Also, and I apologize again, I don't follow how the 'Bike magazine' story cannot be published by Wikipedia since it was written by me. Almost all of the stories under 'References' on the article page have been written by me, and just edited by an editor, like at BBC News. Thank you for your help. Ed82.153.27.162 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The talk page for the article is at Talk:Ed Gold. And any articles by you in the article about you should only be used for supplementary noncontroversial biographical facts. If we're using them in other ways, we shouldn't. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the Ed Gold article it is written that I rode my motorcycle to Ukraine to document a 'pyrolysis' project. I did, but in fact I rode my motorcycle to Ukraine twice in 3 months in 2023. (It took 6 days riding each way, from UK to Ukraine, so 24 days of riding). The 2nd time I rode back to Ukraine was to star in a movie about the Russian genocide of Ukrainian children. I have online news links here as proof, please can you include to the Wikipedia article? (If you use Google Chrome browser, it should translate the page automatically to English).
