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

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30.5 days may be automatically archived by .

Grammar

^{Note: This is not a recent discussion; the last message was written 6 years ago. 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 & 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

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)}[reply]

...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)[reply]

^{(This specific message is probably about the following edit: [1] ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please sign your posts: "~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I was able to address the quote problems pointed out by you. See diff.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
^{*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)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apology to 75.110.241.177: Please read this if you ever come back

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)[reply]

Criminal Party page

I used the same translation for MTV and wikipedia both. I sent them the current translation before. But I created the biography, not them. What do I have to do ? Thanks for helping me. --Fab1966 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 3/5/19[reply]

Hi Fab1966, have you given any "exclusive" rights to the website? Please carefully check your contract. Afterwards, if you did not give "exclusive" rights to anyone, wrote the text entirely yourself in your own words and would like to publish it on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thanks

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote again the buography. What do you think about it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 6/5/19[reply]

Hi Fab1966, thank you for the notification. Is there any update about the copyright? Have you sent an e-mail, for example? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it, but I didn't because I wrote it again. please, could you check it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 7/5/19[reply]

Hmm. Fab1966, I am unsure about this. The changes can be found at Special:Diff/895808513. If you wrote the original text, we can ignore all "close paraphrasing" issues if you take a moment to send the e-mail.
If you really would like to submit the article for review without releasing any rights to the original text, you may use the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. This way, another reviewer can have a look too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll send the e mail. But in the declaration they need to mention a link. Which one need I to include, the MTV one ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 7/5/19 Fabio[reply]

Thank you, that solves the whole problem.

Fab1966, for the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, the "URL of the content" is the website that you have submitted your text to. If you wrote your text for MTV, it is the MTV page, for example https://mtvrock.com/2016/12/30/criminal-party/ . The "Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia" is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fab1966/sandbox&oldid=893329948 . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just the sent the declaration of the owner of the biography. What need I to publish it ? Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Fabio 8/5/19[reply]

Fab1966: Sorry, I am not sure if I understand your message correctly. Have you sent the e-mail to permissions-en

wikimedia.org? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Fab1966 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 8/7/19[reply]

Perfect, Fab1966, thank you very much for taking the time to do this. We need to wait for an answer now. This can take about 50 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 60 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fab1966: If you would like me to submit the draft for review as soon as the e-mail has been read, please tell me "I would like to submit the draft for review as soon as possible" below. I will then wait and later do this for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course yes, I would like to submit the draft for review as soon as possible Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 9/5/19[reply]

Bumping thread for 1000 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Do this when the OTRS ticket is resolved: Special:Diff/896292830 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I sent the permission as you suggested. They asked for common license, that of course I sent, but the they answered in the following way: Dear Fabio Rapisarda, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia's license (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Compatible_license). Additionally, I am still not able to verify that you are the copyright holder. (See directions in my previous message.)

Yours sincerely, [...] Of couse, now i don't know how to solve the problem. Please could you help me ? Thanks

fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS member's signature removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fab1966, that's unfortunate.

Per our legal disclaimer, I can't say "this is okay". I can only point out possible issues, like close paraphrasing, but I can not say "this is fine".

Special:Diff/895808513 seems to indicate that the new text is still based on the MTVROCK article, with the wording changed but the structure unchanged. This is not necessarily a problem, but also probably not ideal. If you hadn't written the MTVROCK article, I would probably suggest deleting the whole text, and writing it from scratch in your own words. As these are your own words, I am unsure how to continue. Is there really no way for you to ask the MTVROCK website owner to verify your authorship? Maybe the MTVROCK website owner can send a similar e-mail to Wikipedia? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the biography with own words. I changed something. If you read the MTV biography and the wikipedia one, they are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, I do believe you.

However, the OTRS volunteer has expressed doubt. Can you ask the administrator of MTVROCK to add a sentence to the MTVROCK page? "This article has been written by Wikipedia user Fab1966 and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license", or something similar? If I understand correctly, you have also received an e-mail with more detailled instructions. There does not seem to be anything I personally can do here at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JJMC89 per Special:Diff/897865501, maybe he can confirm my interpretation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2019050810007489 does not contain an adequate statement of permission. The specified license is not compatible, and there is no evidence that the person who signed the statement is the copyright holder. Given that, I did not compare the source text vs Wikipedia. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you read the new version of the biography, it's not same of the one published by MTV rock. I don't understand because I need a license. https://mtvrock.com/criminal-party/ Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, my original concern was close paraphrasing. When I expressed this concern, I did not know that you have written the MTVROCK article yourself.

If I understand correctly, Wikipedia has still not received verification for your authorship. For this reason, the original Wikipedia article text may be deleted as a suspected copyright violation.

In Special:Diff/895808513, you have modified the closely paraphrased text. It is now less closely paraphrased.

I do not know if this is sufficient. I would prefer clarity about this copyright issue.

I can not give legal advice. I can only point out potential problems. This may be a problem. I do not know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them the Creatice Common license 4.0 (as they suggested), but they wrote me it wasn't fine. Now I don't really know what to do. I don't understand what they need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, there are multiple different "Creative Commons" licenses. Please compare these four licenses:

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

You have likely been asked to use one of the green licenses (

), not the red one (

).

If you have questions about an e-mail sent to you, please respond to the e-mail to ask your questions. Please respond via e-mail that you do not understand what to do next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I attached the Creative common 4.0 link in the Criminal Party's page. Please, could you check if it's correct and maybe send it for the approval ? Thanks Fabio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fab1966, that's sadly not what I meant. You do not need to add this text to the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are automatically published under a free license.

I meant: Could you add the text "This article has been written by Wikipedia user Fab1966 and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license"

to the following page? https://mtvrock.com/criminal-party/

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could try. It doesn't depends on me. Can you suggest an alternative ? Thanks Fabio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, I sadly can't think of a good alternative. Please do try. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted them, but the biography I wrote on wikipedia EN it's not completely the same. I mean, I don't understand because I need a copyright now I made changes to the one published on MTV !!! Thanks

Fabio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, merely "making changes" to a potential copyright violation does not necessarily solve the problem. For example, the old version is still accessible in the revision history of the page. Normally, copyright violations are deleted from the history, but this is not a clear case. For the same reason, I am unsure how to continue here.

Thank you for contacting the website administrator. If they add the requested text to the website, we probably do not need to worry about copyright anymore. This is why I have asked you to solve the problem this way.

Let's wait for the website administrator's response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've inserted a new biography version. Please, could you check it ?

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fab1966, thank you very much for rewriting the article. I have submitted it for review. This may take about 2 months, since there are 3776 other submissions also waiting for review. However, your submission will be reviewed. You will receive a message on your talk page as soon as a reviewer had a look at it.

It may take multiple reviews until the article meets the English Wikipedia's standards. Please don't let this discourage you. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this article, and to deal with the complicated copyright concerns. If you'd like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you may like to have a look at The Wikipedia Adventure and our community portal.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote you in the other page too, I really don't undestand what I need do now. Are they asking me to resubmit the biography ? Why ?

Thanks

Fabio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1966 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab1966, this is unrelated to copyright.

The reviewer seems to have the following concern: WP:42

A good next step could be adding links to independent, reliable newspapers or books that detailledly describe the band. Please ask Bkissin if something is unclear about his concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudification

Hello,

my first submission was rejected. Can you help me what need to be changed pls?

Thx

Bedrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavrena (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vavrena, thank you for your submission. Where did you get the information for the article from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message by Amrohs

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for your feedback on my first wikipedia page about EQS Group. I worked on the draft based on your recommendations. Would you mind checking the page again? Draft:EQS Group

Thank you Alexander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrohs (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amrohs, to ensure a fair review, I usually do not review drafts that I have reviewed in the past. This allows you to get a third opinion easily by resubmitting and letting another reviewer have a look.

One of the sources is German, but I do not have access to it. This one here appears to be an online version, but it is located behind a paywall:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/whistleblower-sollen-per-eu-gesetz-geschuetzt-werden-16022468.html

Also, as there are 3746 pending submissions waiting for review, I do not want to encourage queue-jumping.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle Chvostek page edit _ Copyright issue

Hi, thanks for all the work you do. I just edited Annabelle Chvostek's page and you just flagged it for copyright infringement. I work with Annabelle and wrote the bio myself. I'm just updating her very outdated page. How can I prove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tplanter, thank you for the clarification.

Please have at least a short look at our conflict of interest guideline and disclose your conflict of interest at User:Tplanter.
Please see WP:DONATETEXT for instructions how to update the website to contain the necessary license information for reuse on Wikipedia.
Please propose changes on the talk page of the article, Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, instead of making them directly. There seem to be glaring neutrality issues with the proposed text, so please do not re-introduce promotional language into the article again. Removing incorrect information is likely fine, but new sentences should better be proposed on the talk page of the article. See Template:Request_edit for a convenient way of notifying neutral reviewers of your proposed addition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Makes sense what you say about the promotional language and conflict of interest. I'm new to this and hadn't even thought about it. I'm not getting paid, but I am helping Annabelle out with admin stuff. Should I declare that on my page? I'll work on some updates and run them by you first. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tplanter, while only "compensated" editors are forced by the Terms of Use to do so, you are nevertheless strongly encouraged to disclose such a close connection on your user page. There is no need for a specific template or text; feel free to write any text that you personally consider to be a good explanation of your connection to the article subject.

Regarding the updates, thank you for the offer – but this is not specifically about me; I am not in an authoritative position to decide alone. It would probably be a good idea to get a second reviewer's opinion by using the {{Request edit}} template at Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, instead of asking for a personal review, when you'd like to request changes. I will happily help with any technical issues that occur though, and I can answer questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I tried to revert the page to what it was before my edits and it does not appear. Also, there's the copyright notice at the top of the page now too! Can the old version be restored? Can I not remove inaccurate info and add new, updated info to the existing text (new albums, new website,etc)? Am I banned from updating because I'm a family member? She is not a hugely popular musician and the page hadn't been updated in years.... Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tplanter, removing incorrect information is fine, but that's not what happened in Special:Diff/899444097. Instead, new text was added without a reliable source that directly supports the addition. The text was not neutral, either. Therefore, I have undone this edit.

As advised in my message above, please use the talk page of the article, Talk:Annabelle Chvostek, to request changes ({{Request edit}}), instead of making them directly to the article.

You are not "banned" from modifying the page, but our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from doing so.

The website at annabellemusic.com/bio does still not seem to contain the requested license text. Please see WP:DONATETEXT, which contains example text that you can add to the website to solve the copyright problem. Please do not, however, remove the copyright warning yourself, even if you have provided the requested text. An administrator needs to have a look at this.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you. I sent the message yesterday via email to donate the text and have not heard back but, from what I understand, you're requesting me to make the text copyleft on the webpage itself, right? Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplanter (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tplanter, no problem, thank you very much. A message on the website is probably much faster and a more reliable way of proving the free license status of the website text. An e-mail reply may take about 60 days. If anyhow possible, you can greatly help us by adding the text to the website. If this happens before an administrator has a look at the copyright notice, it also prevents unnecessary work.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just added the CC license to the page. From what I understand, I can't use it anyways, right? I'm just adding it tor prove I didn't steal it. Is that correct? Tplanter (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tplanter.

No edit on Wikipedia is gone forever; your reverted addition is still available in the revision history of the page. For this reason, it was important to prove that the old revision is not a copyright violation. This seems to have been done nicely. When you receive a ticket number in response to your email request, you may like to respond saying that you have added the license notice to the website and that the ticket can likely be closed.

We may even be able to build upon the biography, especially if this is intended to update an outdated article. However, we'll need to ensure that the text is neutral, and we'll need to provide independent, reliable citations for most statements. An official biography page can be a reliable source, but only for a very limited kind of information. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for an explanation.

Again, thank you very much for helping the community to quickly resolve this situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, ToBeFree. I see you've approved the copyright infringement removal and the new text I edited. How long does it take to go live? Why do I still see the old text and the copyright violation notice? Thank you! Tplanter (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tplanter, you're welcome. The text that I had reverted will likely not be added to the article in unmodified form, because it does not appear to be neutral, and because it may lack necessary reliable citations. However, the copyright problem seems to have been solved. An administrator will remove the notice soon; I would have done so myself, because I have added it in the first place, but I think that I can't really do so after having asked you not to do so. Let's just wait for an administrator to remove it.

Let's also wait for a reviewer to respond to your request at Talk:Annabelle Chvostek. I think the reviewer may have the same concerns as I do, so let's wait for their third opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ToBeFree. I do not understand how my new text on Talk:Annabelle Chvostek is not neutral. It simply states facts (albums, awards, and collaborations) and has sources. I can wait for someone else to look at it, but I don't understand how her wikipedia page can say she was a child musical prodigy (which Annabelle herself says is false and somewhat embarrassing), but it is questionably neutral to say how many albums she's released, who she's worked with, and which awards she's won. May I ask what does not come across as neutral? Thank you for your help and your time.Tplanter (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tplanter, especially for taking neutrality into account. However, I am unable to find the text "prodigy" on the page. I have removed it from the page, twice, at Special:Diff/899436473 and Special:Diff/899441402. The first removal was part of my big revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I just visited the page again and the prodigy bit was (thankfully) gone. Thanks for helping me understand all this so patiently, and for all the work you do on the site.Tplanter (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tplanter, it is a pleasure to discuss with you. From the first sentence to this one – someone reverts a huge contribution and the reaction is gratefulness and factual questions. This is a rare, valuable attitude that matches the fundamental values (WP:5P) of this encyclopedia. This whole project exists because people like you decide to invest their free time into it.

I'll avoid explaining potential issues with the requested edit at the moment, because the reviewer may agree with you. If they don't, they will likely provide an explanation that would have matched mine. I can still provide additional explanation if I consider the reviewer's message to be too complicated or not detailled enough. Having a third opinion may be useful.

In the worst case future scenario that I can think of, you may be requesting many edits with all of them being declined. This can be very a discouraging experience. I'm not really assuming the worst, but I'd like to point out that this can happen. In the unlikely case that it does, please think of my words: Your approach to editing is extremely valuable, and shared only by what I personally believe to be a minority of Wikipedia's millions of editors. Some of those who do share your attitude become regular members of the community. When looking at Special:Statistics, you'll notice that only 45,781 accounts are "extended confirmed", meaning that they have made over 500 contributions to the project. Everything counts as a contribution, every typo fix, every talk page message, every revert, even on deleted pages. "Five hundred" may seem to be a lot, but is in practice reached relatively quickly by those who find an enjoyable Wikipedia activity to do in their free time.

For this reason, I'd like to point to two pages that may make you enjoy starting to become a regular contributor, completely independent of the article that you have originally started with. This is a long-term suggestion. If your time is currently occupied by family and job, you may like to come back to this advice as a pensioner/retiree. Please think of this as an open door, not a request. The relevant policy section is called WP:CHOICE. Also related are WP:IAR and WP:BOLD.

Wikipedia has a long-term need of editors like you. I'm not saying it's urgent; that would be overstating a currently non-existent problem. However, this may well change in the future: Wikipedia#English Wikipedia editor decline

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind :)Tplanter (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]