User talk:TParis

Response

I am not looking to do an RfA myself, just thought that I would finally be able to contribute to one. It's kind of neat, being able to give your !vote to let someone the privileges to ban, block, delete, and delete revisions. Though a review of my account is welcomed, as I'm sure there are areas I need to improve on, and certain editing habits I need to stop. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I try to pay attention to what folks do and it seemed to me that you might be setting yourself up for an RfA. I can certainly give you a review anyway if you'd like.--19:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would, very much. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please help?

Hi, I recently posted an article and you rejected it because it was incorrect language. You also mentioned my username was incorrect. Which I desperately need to change. Which page would I submit the request to?

King Regards,

James Klaassen-White Catanofficial (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Well first things first. Yes, your name does need to change. Us Wikipedians have been talking about it and the best thing for someone in your position is a name like "James at Catan". You can file the name change request at WP:CHU/S. The instructions are at the top.

As far as you're userpage, no that isn't an article. And no, it wasn't me that removed it, and no, it wasn't 'rejected' technically. All pages on Wikipedia are editable. Some random editor saw yours, realized it was an inappropriate use of a user page and removed the content. According to the log, it was User:John from Idegon. Userpages are meant to describe what your Wikipedia activities will be. Some personalization is allowed as long as it is primarily about your Wikipedia activities. The way you used it was entirely related to your work and not Wikipedia. Sorry, but we don't allow that. In any case, what sort of plans do you have for Wikipedia once your username is changes?--v/r - TP 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis

Thank you for you comments, I have taken notice of them. I wish to create an informative page on my micronation, named the Republic of Catan. I know numerous people previous to me have tried to make it in my name. I do not wish to go straight in there, I would rather take time and get the percision correct, have good support from fellow wikipedians than mess up and be disliked by many.

Hope this awnsers your question, if not please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Catanofficial (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're a micronation and not a board game? An article on your micronation wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia until it is covered by third party reliable sources such as the press. We're not like Wikia or Webs, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what can be included on Wikipedia is limited to what can be verified by sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking.--v/r - TP 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are a micronation no we find it hard to stop people commenting how we share the name of the board game. Until I have the references I am going to keep it on my user page only :)

Kind Regards,

Jamesatcatan (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, TParis. 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.

Bishonen | talk 19:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, Bish, I agree with you. User:Drmies does smell kind of funky sometimes.--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But he can sure play football! Bishonen | talk 21:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

Banc De Binary request

Regards, TParis. Thank you for identifying yourself as an uninvolved administrator. That makes you just the person to whom I was told by OTRS I should appeal with my concerns. My affirmation of ground rules (which I understand your reasons for archiving) resulted in this comment by User:Nagle. It appears to me that there are several violations of no original research (rumors), no personal attacks, biography protection, verifiability, and reliable sources. I had hoped to preclude this sort of thing from discussion, as it is not my intent to demonstrate point by point every talkpage violation that arises, but to demonstrate how the article should be improved. Should this editor receive a mild or severe warning, based on the need for civil, mediated discussion? BDBIsrael (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing content guidelines with behavioral guidelines. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:V are content guidelines. WP:BLP can be a behavioral guideline to a point but that point stretches far into defamation and libel grounds which the threshold has not been met here. WP:NPA is the guideline you'll want to refer to and specifically the line that says "Serious accusations require serious evidence." The ANI post you're complaining about is supposed by a diff to a discussion you've started. That discussion exactly supports the complain on ANI. So I'm not sure what you'd like to happen. It is not a personal attack to describe a user's behavior and support it with diffs.--v/r - TP 20:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, TParis. The NPA concern is statements about criminality, such as "The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US", which is not the case, nor could it be. The BLP concern (BLP is also a talkpage guideline) is similar, in that it unequivocally reflects negatively on the Board of BDB to state that "they were operating illegally", when this rumor has not been established. The other policies such as NOR should also be recognized as applying, because much OR on talkpages results in OR in the article, such as the OR claim (made three times in the article!) of our having "no physical presence". For this reason, editors should not engage in free talkpage OR, as it harms the encyclopedia.

Further, BDB has identified a pattern of such talkpage rumors that goes back almost a year and contributes to harming BDB's goodwill and public perception, to say nothing of what the article itself does for us. The two types of rumors are also linked, because unchecked rumors tend to dispose editors against unbiased content. My intent was that it should be established that rumor-mongering and throwing about criminal charges and legal conclusions should be dealt with harshly: they give the appearance of discussing improvement of the article but actually "poison the well" against even considering improving the article. It appears that the core policy remaining on the core policy pages is not enough in this case. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a content dispute that requires discussion and consensus to determine how Wikipedia will cover it. However, keep in mind, whether CFTC has the ability or not, if they were to say "X is operating illegally" then it is a fact to say "CFTC said X is operating illegally". They did, in fact, say such a thing. It wouldn't be appropriate, though to say "X is operating illegally" until, as you said, a court of law determines that it is so. This is covered in WP:CRIME. I'm making no particular determination in this case, and using "X" deliberately, to retain my independence from the issue and my uninvolvement. As I said earlier, administrators cannot dictate content. Only consensus can. Discussing sources, and our own interpretation of sources, is highly appropriate for an article talk page and entirely within guidelines. It'd be within your prerogative to explicitly refute the argument with your own counter argument. Regarding content, as User:Atama has decided to get involved, you'll want to refer to their judgement. They may be involved, but they also appear to be taking an impartial/neutral tone to try to mediate the dispute. As an uninvolved administrator, I can only address conduct and BLP issues. I can also perform edit requests which have consensus. That's it.--v/r - TP 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon, TParis. I have been dealing with the "X is operating illegally" version of it for months and neglected to note the subtle difference that took place here. However, the issue of the accumulation of accurate but improperly weighted statements and inaccurate biased statements remains to be dealt with, and it is not immediately clear to me how subtle accumulation can be resolved. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Through mediation. I take no stance on content. You'll need to address your version of the events on the talk page. As suggested to your other BDB counter part, a press release stating your position on the matter could be used. "CFTC says X is operating illegally and has filed suit to prevent X from operating in Y country at all, however X says that CFTC's statement is inaccurate and that they do not have the authority to make such a statement."--v/r - TP 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!!

Wishing TParis a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones in the Wall Street Journal?

Can you please explain this edit? Thanks. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors who seek media attention to their edits are far from alturistic.--v/r - TP 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But he's not mentioned in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Orly? Whether you knew beforehand or not, you've in the middle of a long dispute on Wikipedia, the presence of which now that I've realized has removed my impartiality. Fut Pref, and apparently Smallbones as well, are anti-COI editors with a history of hostility toward COI editors. They didn't just naturally come to the BDB page. They came willingly. BDB isn't just wasting their time, they choose to waste their time with BDB. I don't know about you yourself, but I know about them. They, and apparently I, also have a conflict of interest now because I've been pro-COI editing given conditions such as disclosure. This isn't about BDB at all, it's about COI. Smallbones and Fut Pref don't care about BDB at all. This is just another battleground. And you're in the middle of it. Congratulations.--v/r - TP 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations? I agree that you're not impartial. You indeed seem openly hostile to editors who are not happy with COI editing, even just in this instance. But, edit conflict, I just wanted to mention something. What you quoted is not an on-wiki disclosure. It's barely an off-wiki disclosure. WP:OUTING: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Emphasis added. So you're saying what you did is OK for me and others to do, if it is a Wikimedia project and not Wikipedia? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a SUL-connected account making a comment on Meta is not an on-wiki disclosure? That's just trolling. I'm hostile towards editors who are too short-sighted to see the long-term impact of their irrational hatred towards COI editors. They are creating a bigger mess than they are solving and refuse to see reason.--v/r - TP 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No reason to be snippy with me about this. It just seems like outing to me. If there is an "SUL defense" or an "SUL loophole" or whatever, fine. I've never even heard of it before. I'm just asking a question. I think it's a good question. Obviously you don't. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason we have the off-wiki rule is because you cannot definitely prove that the person off-wiki is actually the same as the person on-wiki. We don't have that problem with SUL.--v/r - TP 20:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I copy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway at this point, I've given up. There are much better subjects that I can make a stand against irrational hatred of COIs. It would have helped if I realized this was a battleground before I offered to help, I only realized it at the end which was way too late to make a difference.--v/r - TP 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrational, and I don't think it's hate. You may want to consider the possibility that it's your viewpoint that is fringe and unsupportable, as well as out of the mainstream. In the discussion that we've just had, you repeatedly downplayed the disruption caused by this company, and they had to literally rub your nose in their own cluelessness before you yourself got a clue about them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand 'vocal' for mainstream. Opposition is vocal, but it's not mainstream. My viewpoint is supported by WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY. Theirs is not. I have plenty of clue about them, I've been following this much longer than I've offered to help. BDB has never had anyone 'on their side', and so the effects of which could not have been known, and I felt that by offering a hand they might take it. Clearly I didn't extend it far enough their direction. I only offered to help when Atama stepped down from an 'uninvolved' position and someone new was needed. And you'd be surprised, I've been following this trend much longer than you have. There is an irrational hatred against paid editing because Wikipedia is founded on the 'free culture'. Free culture isn't a bad thing, but paid editing isn't either. We've laid out rules for paid editing, and like all newbs, we can't expect companies to find them on day 1. We don't expect newbies to find WP:V and WP:N on day one, why do we expect anything different from COI editors? But that's not even the big deal. The big deal is that the tactics used arn't going to do away with paid editing at all. You will never solve paid editing by telling people paid editing isn't allowed. All you'll do is drive it underground and make it harder to detect and less obvious. I'd rather have paid editing open so the edits can be more easily judged on the merits of the edit, and not the editor.--v/r - TP 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis. You have spoken well and boldly. I regret your view that I was not taking your hand in help; I may have contributed that view by my early mistake confusing allegation with quoting of allegation. I don't wish to "not get" anything. It seemed that last week you were in favor of mediation, during which I was asked to present a full list of issues. If you believe that extreme limited editing is the answer and it has community support, I will convey that to the Board. If the community believes that we should be banned when we have been in compliance for some time, with an admitted self-disclosed exception, then I will convey that. But, as you observe, Banc De Binary's options for obtaining basic, verifiable, neutral statements in the article about its identity and other facts are running low. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, User:Smallbones comment about the amount of commenting BDB does is rather relevant. You get paid to push your point here, while these guys are all doing it out of the goodness of their own heart because they want to be part of a free knowledge project. That gives you quite a bit deal more motivation than they have and it's exhausting work for them. You need to be respectful of their volunteer time. That means that the amount of responses, the insistance on changes, and the socks & additional accounts is wearing people's willingness to cooperate with you down. For me, my motivation is to encourage Wikipedians to regulate instead of outright ban COI editing. You're not helping me make my case. You're treating this as if you're speaking to another business and as if we are in negotiations. We're not in negotiation with your company. You are a guest on this project and we're trying to be good hosts.--v/r - TP 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I seek to be a good guest and to respect volunteer time. I speak at length only because it seems the only way to ensure Banc De Binary's right to politely discuss what it considers content policy violations; the degree to which that right appears in jeopardy is the degree to which I hope I have responded. I do not seek to push points, I do not insist on changes, as an internal policy matter we do not use sockpuppets, and I only stepped in with a second account because it became evident that BDBJack's requests based in core policy were (and still are) being ignored. If I do not have the right to discuss politely even the most basic corrections and to resolve concerns about past noncompliance, I am misreading Wikipedia policy myself; but if not, I hope you will continue to affirm that right. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)