User talk:Caliwing: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Caliwing, good luck, and have fun. — Newslinger talk 15:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Caliwing! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Free Software, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit WikiProject Free Software for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! — Newslinger talk 15:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Caliwing, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 15:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come play the Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Caliwing!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot

September 2019

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Gaël Duval, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Greyjoy^talk 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello Caliwing. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Caliwing. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Caliwing|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Template:Z159) -- Yae4 (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: not affiliated in any way to the project, just a user and observer. However, you [User talk:Yae4|talk]] should be be banned from editing, because you are clearly not neutral to this project, and probably have interest with competitors. What you are doing here is only discredit and vandalism. Caliwing (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, shooting accusations at other users is not a way to rebut a COI claim. Second of all, your edit history shows a distinct bias towards the /e/ project and other projects related to /e/'s developer.

Also, you have recently edited 2 other articles (Bluetooth Low Energy and LoRa after being accused of having a COI on the /e/ talk page, which seems like an attempt to add credibility to your case. However, your edit history is still distinctly biased towards the /e/ project. Oldosfan (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding myself: my bias is that 1) I'm interested in open source software and various topics around privacy, low level development etc. Regarding Duval, I know about him since he created the Mandrake Linux distribution. And I discovered /e/ last year and started to use it. True I don't have a lot of time, so I'm editing about what I know, when I'm getting connected to wikipedia. What's wrong here? You claims really sound to me like a trial of intent. 2) There are clearly some people around the /e/ page who have decided to destroy this page, replacing balanced and neutral content by oriented content. In particular there is a user that 1) clearly has a bias against the project (his account is dedicated to this...). 2) is editing content against Wikipedia rules (non neutral). Why nobody is considering his case? I'm super upset about this, and I don't understand why Wikipedia moderators don't moderate this guy. Caliwing (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 :: Firstly, [[WP:CIVILITY|shooting accusations at other users]] is [[Ad_hominem|not a way]] to rebut a COI claim. Second of all, your edit history shows a distinct bias towards the /e/ project and other projects related to /e/'s developer.
 :: Also, you have recently edited 2 other articles ([[Bluetooth Low Energy]] and [[LoRa]] after being accused of having a COI on the [[Talk:/e/ (operating system)|/e/ talk page]], which seems like an attempt to add credibility to your case. However, your edit history is still distinctly biased towards the /e/ project. [[User:Oldosfan|Oldosfan]] ([[User talk:Oldosfan|talk]]) 01:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
+::: Regarding myself: my bias is that 1) I'm interested in open source software and various topics around privacy, low level development etc. Regarding Duval, I know about him since he created the Mandrake Linux distribution. And I discovered /e/ last year and started to use it. True I don't have a lot of time, so I'm editing about what I know, when I'm getting connected to wikipedia. What's wrong here? You claims really sound to me like a trial of intent. 2) There are clearly some people around the /e/ page who have decided to destroy this page, replacing balanced and neutral content by oriented content. In particular there is a user that 1) clearly has a bias against the project (his account is dedicated to this...). 2) is editing content against Wikipedia rules (non neutral). Why nobody is considering his case? I'm super upset about this, and I don't understand why Wikipedia moderators don't moderate this guy.  [[User:Caliwing|Caliwing]] ([[User talk:Caliwing#top|talk]]) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)