User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Grammar

^{Note: This is not a recent discussion; when you're reading this, it might be months or years old. However, I will keep it at the top of the talk page because I hope that 75.110.241.177 might come back and see it one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)}

Previous discussion; already read by 75.110.241.177

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)

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)

Wow. This is getting too extensive to answer solely in a constant 1-1 dialogue, and likely belongs to this page here. I'll have a closer look later this week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC) This text has been moved by ToBeFree, 21:53, 18 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [1]
• 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. [2]
• You can see how many pageviews a wiki had from specific countries. The Wikistats2 maps have now been updated. [3]

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. [4]
• 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)

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)

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. [5]
• 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. [6]
• Editors can do max 90 edits per minute. This is new since last month. This does not affect bots or administrators. [7]

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)