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.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4

Hello wikipedia admin sir, thank you for creating a protected file for the page named Dhobi and again a request to report problems with the page.

The name on this page is Dhobi is a common name that is banned by court but it is not acceptable to have it as a title in a Wikipedia article and also the name of this community is Rajak but when it is said many times between administrators no one notices it.Please change the common name of this page to Rajak. https://m.thewire.in/article/law/calling-people-harijan-or-dhobi-is-offensive-supreme-court Rajathi 123 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajathi 123, do you have any connection to the user Baba God (talk · contribs)? Is "Baba God" your second account? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sir we are same community but both are different state Rajathi 123 (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. You have correctly chosen Talk:Dhobi for your request. However, the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial go a bit further than just creating a new section there. Please have a look at them and try again. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir thank you. Rajathi 123 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; thank you for creating the move discussion. You have now been successful! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it is sad that even some administrators do not accept this opinion, what is wrong in my question sir, can it be accepted if we register the name as an article that should not be mentioned by the court? Anyway thanks admin sir. Rajathi 123 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajathi 123, I may not fully understand the whole situation, but I think I can understand your concern. If I understand correctly, a court has decided that calling people X is offensive. Wikipedia has an article about X. The Wikipedia article describes people as X. So Wikipedia is offensive.

And that's a fine and understandable concern to have. Yet Wikipedia works differently: Wikipedia attempts to neutrally describe what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. People might find some of the described things offensive, but a neutral encyclopedia doesn't care much about such feelings.

This can be disappointing, but I can only attempt to explain the situation; I can't change it. I'm actually pretty content with this situation and not interested in changing it. I, too, value a neutral description of what reliable secondary sources say higher than individual readers' feelings.

Nevertheless: All the best.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajathi 123: No, that’s not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not go by your personal opinions but by reputable academic journals. Please take a look at our guidelines WP:RS, WP:RAJ and WP:HISTRS for more information. Thanks. (talk page watcher). Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir I have a doubt that is which Yadav community are herdsmen it has herdsman in the title of their article, another one potter but they have kulala like this every community has profession but caste is not mentioned focusing on that profession what is the purpose of mentioning only in this article? Rajathi 123 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only assert this opinion with all evidence and not my personal opinion https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6h2Gm1gPZZQC&pg=PT1212&dq=dhoba+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixv9rU8c3yAhVNyGEKHYIwDIU4ChDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=dhoba%20caste&f=false Although Dhobi is a myth not to be pronounced by the court, the name has nothing to do with the people as a whole Rajathi 123 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even now they are uploading an unnecessary image in this article and the court banned this name on the basis that all the people who see it will get the impression that their activities are similar. https://m.thewire.in/article/law/calling-people-harijan-or-dhobi-is-offensive-supreme-court Rajathi 123 (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhobi

[1] possible copyright infringement. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.Pinsky, you may like to have a look at your Wikimedia Commons preferences: The "Gadgets" section contains the helpful "Quick Delete" tool. I have just used it to tag the file as lacking permission and to automatically notify the uploader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing BLP edit war at Dorothy Moon

I feel an admin should step in at Dorothy Moon. I tried to get the page protected, at least while the WP:BLPN discussion is ongoing, but the responding admin was reluctant to do so the day before elections. It is now the day after and the one who opened the discussion is still trying to keep that content off the page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. The disruption seems to come from one specific user, Taxmiester, who seems to have been edit warring before creating an account, and who seems to have continued afterwards. I have reminded them about what had already been written at User_talk:2604:2D80:DF80:F600:5CBC:9F78:E0EC:40F on their account's talk page now, and I'll keep an eye on the situation. It doesn't seem to be a case requiring page protection even if the edit warring continues; blocking would be a more effective measure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to war. Also, you left the misinformation up through the election. Well done! Read my notes and tell me why you think it is okay to label Ms. Moon as a racist neo-Nazi? The definition of Far-Right and extremist is a topic in Wikipedia. I'm just asking to follow the definition being published by Wikipedia. Taxmiester (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taxmiester, there's no discussion on the article's talk page yet. Please re-read the advice I had provided on your talk page, then create a discussion there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin and you're playing BLP games by suggesting that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and PBS might not meet our WP:RS requirements? How odd... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, please take a moment to re-evaluate the situation. A new editor, stubbornly if you like, completely wrong content-wise if you like too, raises specific concerns about each used source. Instead of continuing to edit war, they engage in a discussion, but sadly not on the article's talk page. So what I did is moving the concerns there, creating an RfC, inviting previous discussion participants including you, and removing the material with WP:BLPRESTORE in mind until a consensus is found. This isn't "odd"; it is policy compliant contrary to your revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming bizarre, not just odd. You edited the article using an edit summary that suggested that the reliability of the Guardian, the Washington Post, and PBS is not secure. That's a bad edit; it is obviously contrary to longstanding consensus about those sources. So, I reverted it. I'm aware that a "brand new" editor has taken that view about the sources. But what I don't understand is: why would you adopt (or even indulge) that view for the purpose of that edit? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're trying to say, but it could have been said in a nicer, more collegial manner. And I can assure you that ToBeFree was acting in good faith. (talk page watcher) Dr.Pinsky (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pinsky, throughout the process I've been a little confused who I was responding to. Apologies for my less than collegial manner when speaking to you and the people trying to resolve the issue. Also, initially, I was never quite sure what page I needed to be on. I kept seeing posts saying that nothing had been posted to the subject matter talk page, being confused, I just copied everyone on what I was trying to communicate.

So, that being said, I will try and follow the process going forward. Thanks for your assistance. Taxmiester (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We probably disagree about whether there was a "good-faith" BLP objection. I assume there was. After I had warned Taxmiester about Wikipedia's prohibition on edit warring, they repeatedly complained about the article's verifiability/neutrality, including with messages I have removed from my talk page ([2], [3]). My impression was, and is still, that Taxmiester is genuinely concerned about how Wikipedia describes Dorothy Moon. Others including you had attempted to explain basic policies to them, but there was no discussion on the article's talk page about the issue, and Taxmiester asked for dispute resolution. The easiest way to resolve this dispute once and for all was to start an RfC on the article's talk page, so I did so. While you have expressed dissatisfaction with the creation of the RfC, I think obtaining a clear consensus on the article's talk page this way was a pretty good idea.

About the removal of the disputed content: Well, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.^{[[WP:BLPRESTORE]]}

If we disagree about whether Taxmiester was acting in good faith, we'll have to remain in disagreement and I'm fine with that. If we disagree about whether there was already the required consensus, I'm willing to give in and say there practically was; there certainly is now. If we disagree about whether good-faith removed BLP content should stay removed before a consensus is found, though, you'll have to find a way to change the policy or accept it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I responded to Dr. Pinksy and it applies to you as well. Initially, I was never quite sure who was who.

Dr. Pinsky, throughout the process I've been a little confused who I was responding to. Apologies for my less than collegial manner when speaking to you and the people trying to resolve the issue. Also, initially, I was never quite sure what page I needed to be on. I kept seeing posts saying that nothing had been posted to the subject matter talk page, being confused, I just copied everyone on what I was trying to communicate.

So, that being said, I will try and follow the process going forward. Thanks for your assistance. Taxmiester (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Taxmiester (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]