User talk:LOP97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ronan Farrow[edit]

I understand you're new to Wikipedia, at least under this registered name, though if you've registered under other names to add promotional material, that would be troublesome.

RE: "I recommend that Farrow's book announcement be kept in the career section unless all other upcoming projects, promotions, etc are taken down from ever[y] Wikipedia biography." That's an unreasonable demand; there are millions of Wikipedia articles and that's not how Wikipedia works. Other stuff exists, and not every Wikipedia article is up to high standards — that's why we have Good Article and Featured Article reviews. We don't make an article worse and then point to a bad article; we point to a good article and make articles better.

RE: "The information was cited directly from the publisher's announcement and used the word 'currently' to indicate that the release date may change." The word "currently" is disallowed in Wikipedia since "currently" is constantly changing; see the guidelines at WP:DATED. You might also see the policies / guidelines WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. What I suspect — and I hope I'm wrong, though I don't think so — is that you are affiliated with the publishing company or perhaps with Farrow, in which case you should look at the policy about conflict of interest.

What I'm seeing isn't someone interested in helping to build an encyclopedia and contributing constructively to different articles. I'm seeing someone trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia doesn't need that. If you're sincerely interested in helping Wikipedia and not pushing an agenda, please learn the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and please respect the policies and guidelines involved in creating an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The passage at Ronan Farrow already said he was a "UNICEF Spokesperson for Youth," and we avoid POV WP:PEACOCK words like the unquantifiable "prominent". You seem to take a promotional bent with this article, and nothing in your edits there suggest anything other than a publicist, friend or other advocate. May I ask what your particular interest is in Ronan Farrow, since you seem not to be interested in editing Wikipedia (except for the "Adventure" edits) but just this one particular article? Why is that? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Tenebrae, thanks for your question as I feel you're still uncertain in my interest in Wikipedia. I'd like to first acknowledging your change in my edit. There must be some sort of mistake because my addition to Farrow's page did not include the word "prominent." The word prominent is only used in the title of the article I cited, which is an already cited source on Farrow's page (listed #13). It should also be noted that while Farrow's page was the first page I edited, I've edited multiple pages since that first edit including, but not limited to - Netflix, Dolly Parton and The Sphinx Head Society. I'm sure I'm allowed to contribute more than once to a page - but you're making it very difficult to feel welcome to this community when every time I make an edit to Farrow's page you assume I have an alternative agenda.
Do you question each entry a new Wikipedian makes as much as you've questioned my entries? Please advise on the best way we can resolve this situation as I'd like to feel comfortable editing any page I find interest in. Perhaps instead of accusing me of being a sock puppet, promotionalist, etc you could provide feedback on my edits. For example, there must have been a mistake in the citing for my most recent edit as it was supposed to read as follows: "acting as an 'advocate for children and women caught up in the ongoing crisis in Sudan's Darfur region'" (cite already cited source #13 on Farrow's page) and included that his mother was a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in a separate sentence. I would find it much more educational if you could correct the citing error I somehow made, and inform me of how to fix it for future entries, instead of questioning my interests in joining Wikipedia. LOP97 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I, like many other editors, only question edits that long experience has taught us seem promotional. Do you really think publicists and others have never tried to add promotional material to Wikipedia? Do you really honestly believe such edits don't follow a familiar, recognizable pattern?
You also don't seem to be acknowledging that when you added a more neutral version of the book announcement, it was I — not you — who added a journalistic third-party citation, so I'm not sure what your issue is there.
I've already explained why I believe your interest in this article is promotional in nature, not least of which being that your very first edit to Wikipedia ever was to add information about a book just announced by the publisher — even though you'd shown no interest in Wikipedia before this. Except for Wikipedia Adventure, you don't seem to be showing much interest in articles other than this. And aside from all other concerns, that most recent edit was redundant as his UNICEF was already mentioned in the article. I've been saying these things all along, so instead of saying "I'd find it more educational if you told me what I was doing wrong" you'd actually read what I've been saying at every step of the way.
As for "prominent," it was my error that you added it to the text — but it was your error in duplicating a cite that was already there that used "prominent" in its title. Seeing "prominent" in lowercase, when it already appeared in title case immediately afterward made it appear to be part of the article text and not a cite. I made an error reading your edit; you made an error editing. See below (titles boldfaced):
[CITE] url= | title = Ronan Farrow: A prominent voice advocating for children in Darfur | publisher = UNICEF}}</ref> and assisting in fundraising and addressing United Nations affiliated groups in the United States. [CITE] | title= Ronan Farrow: A Prominent Voice Advocating for Children | publisher = UNICEF | date= December 20, 2005|accessdate= 2011-06-20}}</ref>
--Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

LOP97, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi LOP97!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.


Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to Wikipedia ... I think ....[edit]

LOP97, don't let editor's like Tenebrae get you down. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a number of years now and you will find that there are a lot of editors whose default move in a content disagreement is to attack, accuse, and insult. You will also find a lot of occasions where editors will lecture you that their opinion matters more because of how many edits they have made or how long they have been on Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia's version of comparing dick sizes where the biggest dick thinks he's the winner.

There will also be editors who, when disagreeing with you on a particular edit, will make their first move to check your edit history and either follow you around trying to find other edits to object to. It is not unusual for editors like Tenebrae to decide that a disagreement on content is a reason to check someone's edit history (as if it were relevant to the question). That's why Tenebrae first reply to each of us was specifically about our edit histories. Those who cannot defend the content of their ideas about edits like to attack assumtions they make about the character of other editors.

Some people are driven away from editing Wikipedia by the bully crowd. Some just decide to play the game and join them. But there are others who just learn to brush them off, stick to discussing content, and get on with their business. That is your mission, should you choose to accept it.... Welcome to Wikipedia. (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LOP97. I've left a message at Talk:Ronan Farrow; you and I are good.
As for the supposed "anon IP": Anyone can use anon IPs to claim they're experienced Wikipedia editors or anything else they want to claim because, for very deliberate reasons, they've chosen not to register and be accountable. Wikipedia unfortunately attracts a lot of trolls, corporate publicists, etc., and people sometimes use anon IPs for misdirection. As a side note, anyone who believes edit histories aren't germane doesn't understand or respect the reason Wikipedia has them. Finally, as for the vulgar comments above, I would simply point one to the essay Don't Be a Dick.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

There appears to be an edit-war brewing at Ronan Farrow, an article which you have recently edited. This may be of interest to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Tenebrae - thanks for bringing this to my attention. I reviewed the edit that User:Robedia made and agree with your revision as this seems to apply to the WP:PRECISELANG guideline which we discussed during my first edit. When I reviewed the paragraph I noticed that the below information is listed in "Early Life" but it should be listed in "Personal Life." I've made that edit.
After being asked in 2013 about longstanding speculation Ronan Farrow is the son of Mia Farrow's ex-husband Frank Sinatra, Mia Farrow claimed that Sinatra might "possibly" be his father.[4] No DNA testing has been conducted to determine Farrow's paternity.[4]
I'm also a little confused as to why such speculation is being included on Farrow's Wikipedia page. I trust your judgment in keeping it on the page, but would welcome knowing the reason for educational purposes. Thanks. LOP97 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I very much agree with you it belongs under "Personal life" — I don't know why I didn't notice that myself!
And I'd also agree that pure speculation has no place here. But a reasonable question of paternity in which the mother herself makes an on-the-record statement that the man considered the father may not be so seems necessary to include. Thanks for keeping watch on the article; while we might sometimes disagree, I know we're both trying to improve it. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take a brief survey about The Wikipedia Adventure[edit]

Hi! Thanks for playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey: 10 minute survey.

--thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)