User talk:JosefAbraham

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, JosefAbraham, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Outlying Field Coupeville[edit]

Hi there. Can I suggest you summarize the information on the poster and add it to the article as text? I'm sure the information on the poster is published someplace. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can do that this evening. The information is published in the photo and around several NAS Whidbey Island factsheets. It would be a good idea to also post the poster as a photo, respectfully. Especially as the photo is a) mine and b) posted to WikiMedia to help me write this article. --JosefAbraham 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The text would be an interesting addition. Thanks. I'd leave the poster out though, as posters of text often get deleted. If you need help with the references let me know. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will summarize the information and make a list of citations, including to the NAS Whidbey factsheets & poster. Should work. JosefAbraham 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's be sure to remember, however, that Wikipedia is not meant to be a quote farm. A huge wall of quoted text is not acceptable as being encyclopedic, either. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen, now I understand precisely what your concerns are and will post an edit per your requests in the next 5-6 hours. I honestly don't do that much Wikipedia because a lot of what I do and am interested in doesn't lend itself to Wikipedia. However, I want to contribute when I can, where I can. JosefAbraham 00:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling that reading WP:UNDUE would also be helpful. This article should remain balanced. Adding too much more to the article in the new section would be problematic. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'd post my summary tonight but zzzzzzzzzz after hard work requires I wait. Sorry. Your help and counsel is helpful and will be taken to heart. JosefAbraham 08:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Seattle mayoral election, 2017, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Sounder Bruce 04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, I'm going to let you handle that. No secret what I think of Alex Tsimerman. JosefAbraham 20:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ORCAleak[edit]

The article ORCAleak has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not written in NPOV, agenda-pushing, and synthesizing of sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sounder Bruce 07:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm SounderBruce. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to ORCAleak seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sounder Bruce 07:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, SounderBruce I made some changes to ORCAleak. I have no agenda to push on that page except to highlight the scandal. I admit to synthesizing sources and bumming your code. Also the last edit, I added a YouTube of CEO Rogoff's response to the scandal.

Nomination of ORCAleak for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ORCAleak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORCAleak until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sounder Bruce 23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORCA user data disclosure incident article[edit]

Hey Joe, As you start to learn how to edit on Wikipedia, a suggestion from me would be to read the welcome comment that was posted on the top of this talk page. One of the most important to read is on the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Beyond that, I just want to make you aware of a few Wikipedia policies you might find helpful as you continue to edit the ORCA user data disclosure incident article:

On Wikipedia, we strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

Those last two sentences are particularly important. Since you coined the terms "ORCAleak" and "Abigaileak," you would need to show that they are being used in reliable, authoritative sources. If you can't, they would probably count as "original research" which is not allowed and will be removed.

In a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources.

Hope that helps. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ORCA user data disclosure incident for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ORCA user data disclosure incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORCA user data disclosure incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sounder Bruce 04:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I speak, the Washington State Senate Law & Justice Committee will hold hearings on October 5, 2017 in part on the ORCA user data disclosure incident based on documents I have seen posted to their website. https://app.leg.wa.gov/CMD/document.aspx?agency=7&year=2017&cid=17548&mid=27613&hid=210208

A full update will occur Tuesday evening linking to multiple docs from me.

October 2017[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Sounder Bruce 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could have waited until after the hearings tomorrow. If it's all nothing and I've wasted so much time here, OK. Let this be a tough but fair lesson to you that timing and being situationally aware matters.

Me, I wanted to document this incident/leak in a truly just way. I've tried to write in a way that leaves my most strident biases off of the page. JosefAbraham 01:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Naval Outlying Field Coupeville. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not deceptively change content and intentionally use incorrect/inaccurate edit summaries -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at Lorena González shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sounder Bruce 03:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in an edit war, but what are you doing to me here? I have reasons why I wrote the Tsimerman ejection the way I did on Lorena González. It's survived a long time, and respectfully when there is a controversial incident I like the idea of having a credible news report backed up by a video. You are also well aware that I having an interest in tempering hate speech I wanted to remove bias in the write-up. JosefAbraham 04:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing with an WP:AGENDA is strictly prohibited. Having the news article is, by itself, enough to corroborate the story. Having half of González's article taken up by a single incident that had pretty much no effect on her career is the definition of WP:UNDUE. Sounder Bruce 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sounder Bruce, I don't want to have my biases influence WikiPedia content. I disagree with citing just a news article when a primary source exists - especially as SeattleMet (aka Seattle Metropolitan) is not as established as a source as the Seattle Times or Associated Press, but so would many in the open government community. I want WikiPedia to be a resource for all, too - especially for fellow open government nerds like yours truly.

As such I just tweaked your edits to my satisfaction and consider the final product decent. Many thanks for your counsel. JosefAbraham 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SounderBruce. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lorena González seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Words like "spiteful" and "ejected" are too forceful and opinionated. Also, adding your own YouTube clipping is not appropriate, per the WP:SPAMLINK guidelines, which forbid the linking of copyrighted materials hosted without permission of the original creator. It is also still unnecessary, as Wikipedia is built upon secondary sources rather than primary ones. Sounder Bruce 06:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that was my YouTube clipping, but Seattle Channel doesn't have a problem with it. I will make a few more edits. Joe JosefAbraham 06:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce, the sources I reinserted at Lorena González are neutral and show the events. One of which is a YouTube, the other of which is the letter Tsimerman was served with spelling out which rules he violated. About as neutral as neutral can get. I, like you, don't care for editorializing on WikiPedia.

Alex Tsimerman has a pretty long and colored history at the Seattle City Council chambers. I think he has had issues with most of the councilmembers in the past decade and has been in the news for attempting to collect his mother's benefits after she died. He has his own electoral history. If you wanted to spend your energy making an Alex Tsimerman wiki-page, I could throw a few example alex stories that way. I would agree that Gonzalez being the one to issue the 1 year ban really only follows escalating short term bans and might not be very notable for her page. The series of bans and Alex's actions over the years might actually make for a pretty good wiki page to point new residents to, as people who stumble upon council chamber footage always seem surprised by him. Jwfowble (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jwfowble, well maybe the solution here is to create a separate page just on Alex Tsimerman. The problem is, there's extensive Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rules that make me nervous. I think people need to be aware of this creep and of actions that are available to curtail this abuse of our commons. Right now, I'm real nervous about doing any future WikiPedia work. JosefAbraham 09:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JosefAbraham reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: ). Thank you. Sounder Bruce 06:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, thank you. JosefAbraham 06:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello JosefAbraham. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of the complaint. You may be blocked the next time you try to add links in this article to questionable sources like Youtube or Scribd unless you have obtained prior consensus to do so on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you EdJohnston. I will just seek prior permission first on the talk page. JosefAbraham 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, JosefAbraham. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Alex Tsimerman, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You cannot cite your own book, period. You can cite the publicly-available documents, however. Sounder Bruce 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]