User talk:OperaBalletGirl

Welcome!

Hello, OperaBalletGirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Vladimir Malakhov (dancer) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Tacyarg (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m still trying to figure out how to make sure I’m not complicit in deliberately disinforming the general public while also taking into the current rules of this particular information website into account. Perhaps you can help. For example, above you mention changes you willingly made to the profile of an internationally recognized teacher, dancer & former director from the Ukraine named Vladimir Malakhov. Thousands of people took his classes on Instagram during lockdowns since 2020 and that is visible as some of them have been saved on multiple social media websites because they seem to be of continued benefit to dancers looking for quality ballet exercises from a renowned ballet teacher like Malakhov. We understand that this has not been written about in mainstream newspapers , which are still described as reliable sources of information, but at the same time any editor who willingly makes large edits can (just like any editor) easily search for and see many of the classes we mentioned on his page from the last 3 years. I think it must be difficult to find any ballet dancer or dance editor in the world who is not aware of Mr. Malakhov’s generous classes for the internet public that took place during the most recent global pandemic. It has been a big part of why he continues to be so well-known in the Arts community and why information about his career that is so notable is important to be able to find on a source like this particular website. To remove paragraphs about the Ukrainian teacher’s renowned hard-work on a global clip-sharing website over the last three years, as you have, just because it has not been reported-on in words in mainstream newspapers, appears to be faulty research quite simply because it deliberately removes notable truth about this artist. We understand that you are likely not actively making what we believe is a "mistake" because it seems you are following most of the rules outlined on this site. However, if we know about all of his seemingly selfless charity work for the public over the last 3 years on a public website, just the same way we see a lot of internationally relevant & notable work by other artists on TikTok or Instagram that newspapers have not written about yet, how can we condone that responsible reporting about it on this site be purposefully removed, hidden from unsuspecting users of this site the way you have done? We assume this is not personal and that you do not have any conflicts of interest since none have been declared by you before removing relevant information. We assume that you are just trying to do well and limit this site to only newspaper or magazine-sourced information that is in print-form rather than in picture or audio/video clip format. Ww understand that you appear to be acting with authority so any tips are welcome regarding making sure biographical quality-information on this site remains available & honest unless it appears to be an advertisement or seem significantly problematic in any other way. Feel free to correct the article in question if you see fit and message me privately if you like or openly on this forum as you have previously chosen to do. We are also trying to keep this an honest and safe place to browse while making sure that no current & relevant information about a person’s respectable and easy to verify contributions to their fields of work is unavailable to visitors of this site.

operaballetgirl

(they/them) OperaBalletGirl (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to pick up your use of "we" - are you a single person using this account? Please don't share accounts. Tacyarg (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above.

Thank you.

OperaBalletGirl

(they/them) OperaBalletGirl (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm The person who loves reading. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Evan McKie, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! The person who loves reading (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OperaBalletGirl! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Evan McKie several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Evan McKie, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please don't add unsourced material, or statements which read promotional. Please discuss this on the article's Talk page rather than edit warring. Also, you say "We encourage" - please use one account per person, do not share accounts.. Tacyarg (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that some of your wording is very similar to that of Mihi Credite (talk · contribs), who has also edited the Evan McKie article. If you are the same person, please only use one account Tacyarg (talk)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, OperaBalletGirl. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Evan McKie, 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edward- There was a slight concern that our article was being treated in a way that seemed undue to both Wikipedia & the subject who many people know because thousands of people watch each of their performances each offering. For people who share an interest in actors, dancers or singers, exact data about all pieces performed and/or created by the Artist are of utmost importance. This person is only noteworthy enough to warrant multiple interviews, encyclopedia entries and web-traffic because of their work in the public sphere. We do not anticipate private information to appear here. However, reference to reviews by highly skilled journalists of the New York Times, the Globe & Mail, the Financial Times, the New Yorker & various upstanding trade publications are a core part of describing the artists to Wikipedia’s readers. Excessive cutting of important content has been a problem at Wikipedia for Actors, Singers, Blockbuster films...and there will always be those few people who try to alter or remove relevant information about the work the artist has done. A writer wrote that Viola Davis’ work on a particular film was "a triumph" but the quote has been taken down because there was great concern that such statements might seem like advertising. The Artist won an Academy Award for the portrayal but writing anything about their triumph in the role, the context and the reaction was forbidden by certain Wikipedia editors, who are watched carefully.

A previous editor didn’t understand what (they/them) meant as attached to the writer, an extremely well known Opera critic & we’ve even had to deal with people editing articles who didn’t know who Tchaikovsky was.

Please let us know if you have issues here. Pleased don’t be afraid to ask questions if this is not your area of expertise. OperaBalletGirl (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked above whether you are one person using this account, or whether it is shared by several people. Your consistent wording, "we", implies that more than one person is using this account. Can you clarify, please? On the phrase "our article", please see WP:OWN. Tacyarg (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-

We are not friends-with the subject nor do we work for him.

Do you know the subject or have any reason to possibly vandalize by changing facts, relevant quotes, dates and more? Someone took his entire list of roles and productions completely off the page and that seemed unusual & personal. People researching Actors, Dancers, Singers, Authors are looking for clean & complete information about each work.

Omitting it is withholding important information, is it not?

thank you.

OBGirl

they/them OperaBalletGirl (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know, work for or represent the subject of the article, and do not have a conflict of interest regarding it. Tacyarg (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have reverted your edit as unsourced and using non-neutral language. Wikipedia should not include statements such as "celebrates an exemplary 22-year career" unless they are sourced to reliable sources. I will start a discussion on the article's Talk page about this. Tacyarg (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We understand. Though there is quite a bit of literature mentioning this, we understand that journalism behind a paywall is not accessible to everybody. Nevertheless, ALTERING facts is a different story. We thank you for your extremely diligent effort to find the truth. At this point you are not doing a good enough job of checking sources. We KNOW BETTER THAN ANTBODY, that it’s tough. If a politician says it on TV and you haven’t seen or taped that, you are left behind .

Why don’t you just reach out to the subject before rearranging part of their work & life story? OperaBalletGirl (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hi, I have reverted your addition of unsourced material to the Evan McKie article. Please do not add unsourced material. Please see referencing for beginners. You are welcome to add sourced content to the article, as long as you do not have a conflict of interest (see guidance linked above). If you do have a conflict of interest, please use WP:REQUESTEDIT to make requests for edits on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as before please do not add unsourced information to the Evan McKie article, and please do not use non-neutral language such as "popular", unless this or similar terms are used by sources which you cite. Please remember that Wikipedia articles should be neutral in tone. You are welcome to discuss on the article's Talk page if you would find that useful. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hi, I have reverted your edit to the Evan McKie article on the grounds that it added information without sources, altered a quotation - the article quotes "Evan entranced National Ballet audiences"; your edit added "all over" to this; and used emotive language which is not given in references ("beloved", "fondly"). Please remember that Wikipedia articles must be neutral in tone and all statements must be referenced, especially about biographies of living people. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Evan McKie. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OperaBalletGirl, I have once again removed excessive quotations from the article Evan McKie. Please don't re-add that stuff. Excessive quotation is a violation of our non-free content guideline. You should simply link to the page where the material can be found, and interested readers can look at it there. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Evan McKie have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Please also take care to stick to neutral tone of voice. Your addition of "complex" is not supported by the source. Tacyarg (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we believe you are incorrect in removing that data. Please return it. This subject is having their page messed with constantly and the page often needs to be rebuilt because editors have in fact edited from a non-neutral place and have not done the required research. And have you seen the disrespectful language in the edit summaries? Also, why on Earth are "editors" wasting time accusing other editors of having met or ever had any contact with the subject while leaving the article in shambles? Looking at the vitriol a little closer leafs us to believe that it is infact the "Editors" who keep removing massive chunks, job titles, neutral & cited facts who may have relationships with the subject: clearly biased as well. Is there no way to contact the subject about this? The allegations are getting quite serious and I feel that there are editors who are lacking integrity. Also there’s been enough one way disrespect in the edit summary section to report. Please be respectful & wise. You’re dealing with a real person’s life and career here. This person meets, I’m guessing, a thousand new faces a month. Calling out COI is troubling. OperaBalletGirl (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Evan McKie. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. "He is a well-known instructor & masterclass teacher all over the world." is NOT neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it is published everywhere, & true. It’s not our opinion.

It’s a legitimate & important part of the subject’s career no doubt. What would you write? OperaBalletGirl (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Stuttgart Ballet, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific? What was unsourced or poorly sourced in either article. We want to help you but asking for a citation for the subject’s birthday(!) is ridiculous. Even after offering two different links, those link were removed. This leads to concerns of bias. You have to admit there’s been a lot of strange edits and entire chunks (like repertoire) being ripped out. It’s not acceptable, even if that particular editor gets bored reading long discographies, Scientists’ lists of discoveries etc… That’s not a reason to completely remove something so important. OperaBalletGirl (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Stuttgart Ballet you added a number of dancers who have emerged from the company, you did not provide a source and they were mainly non notable(ie. no articles) and for the record a subject's birthdate absolutely does need a reliable citation per WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Evan McKie. Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We hear you. We do not like to be threatened and there are many examples of recent Vandalism in this article that does not come from us. From Wikipedia; Please read:

"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.

Vandalism is prohibited." OperaBalletGirl (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay special attention to:

"…malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

from Wikipedia Vandalism Section. OperaBalletGirl (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, OperaBalletGirl. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Evan McKie, 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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 have not adequately explained your connection to the subject, despite repeated requests. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Yes, we agree, editing an article with any type of bias or connection to anyone who’d want to hype or humiliate the subject is absolutely unacceptable. That is why we have organized a team to monitor why this account in particular has been edited in with an unusually high frequency lately. Well-cited truths have been removed suspiciously especially when it comes to what makes the subject a person of interest to those who want to research Dance, Theatre and well-known, often written-about dancers. It seems more to us like there are editors attacking this page in ways that demonstrate a possible conflict of interest. Some editors simply don’t have understanding of the Ballet art-form and have blundered while editing. Other editors have tried to rally peer editors to see if Journalists who have written positively and truthfully about the subject & and provided clear and necessary context, know or have ever come in contact with the subject. Of course they have, they have interviewed the subject. Editors have also removed the subject’s entire list of roles and creations which is exactly like removing a musical producer’s discography: unacceptable, especially for Wikipedia. Removing important duet performances with the very top dancers and collaborators in the subject’s field of work is also an edit that did not seem fair, correct or well-intended.

To our knowledge it is not okay to remove verified & relevant information from the page. It also raises suspicions when whole sections of this person's career is cut out. (Visual Artist has been removed frok the page many times despite the subject’s enormous success in that careeer. Some of the language in the editing section is blatant harassment and we won’t stand for it. We are also concerned about vandalism.

We noticed that your removed this (below), we wonder why. It has been fact checked by two independent fact-checkers and is legitimate and important.

"His classes at the National Ballet Canada as part of InStudio drop-in outreach program, beat records: Amount of students, size of audience, student retention or returning students and funds raised for the company. McKie gave his fee to charity." OperaBalletGirl (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are STRICTLY single person use, you say " we have organized a team to monitor why this account in particular has been edited in with an unusually high frequency lately." That is a blockable admission. See Wikipedia:NOSHARING.Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term disruption and apparent account sharing. This account has persistently made unsourced promotional edits to a small handful of articles where they appear to have a conflict of interest and cannot understand Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing and neutral content..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have not promoted, advertised or hyped the subject. If you research the subject, you will see that we HAVE been sharing in quite a neutral tone while we have tried to prevent more vandalism on the page from other editors. We have used sourced material and yes we have been very concerned about the way this person’s page has been handled recently. It did seem to be happening with ill-intent. It did seem to want remove everything about the subject’s life and career that make it notable. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We were told in a recent message from "theroadislong" that additions we made to develop the Stuttgart Ballet page by adding extremely notable artists who emerged from the company were wrong and that (according to user "theroadislong", they are non-notables or they couldn’t find articles about them. That’s highly unlikely as we have searched for ourselves and think that "theroadislong" removing that information from Stuttgart Ballet page is, indeed vandalism and I do believe that user should be blocked immediately from editing. They may want to take some time and research gender pronouns and how we use them in 2023. The user’s commentary is insulting for a trans person. we are hoping to be unblocked and believe the lesson for me is to find sources for every statement, even birthdays, which we did find two different sources to cite. (Both were deleted by Editors within 10 minutes.) What do we do if seasoned journalists from the biggest papers use language about the subject that a persistent Wikipedia editor personally finds non-neutral? Should the opinions of those expert journalists be removed from the subject’s profile? Just trying to learn.

Also, again, we have no external relationship with the subject.

Thank you for your patience. I hope to be reinstated at your earliest convenience.

They/Them OperaBalletGirl (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OperaBalletGirl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason : See above.OperaBalletGirl (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for the block. When you make a new request, place your initial statement within the unblock request template(replacing the words "your reason here"). 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

With this edit [1] you added “Louis Stiens, Christian Spuck, Evan Mckie, Demis Volpi, Iratxe Ansa, Xenia Wiest, Roman Novitzky, Fabio Adorisio,Rolando D’Alesio and Alejandro Cerrudo.“ to the Stuttgart Ballet article none of them have articles so are not notable in Wikipedia terms and the edit was unsourced. You had ample opportunity to explain what you meant by "we" but chose not to and you also said "we have organized a team to monitor why this account in particular has been edited in with an unusually high frequency lately" implying a sharing of the account. Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated Editors and the concept of non-neutrality.

Hello those interested. With all due respect, editors who demonstrate a particular interest in the page about Evan McKie have removed crucial academic information such as what works the subject has performed and when. Also, recently, such editors removed, without acceptable reason, two out of three major educational institutions that appear to be, based on multiple media sources, very significant to the subject, McKie. Not trying to pass judgment here; just trying to get this page back to a more correct version based on the many multiple sources there appear to be online. Removing Education and list of works is not in line with Wikipedia protocol. And I also would like to ask, from a human point of view, why these very particular editors who became interested in the article around the same time would want to remove elements that did not meet criteria for removal? And are these Editors not worried about litigation given what they are doing to the subject and to interested Wikipedia readers and researchers? Facts and citations are important, I agree; however taking down simple phrases like " celebrated career " and denounce it as puffery shows us that the editors in question have either not done their research or they are hoping to chisel away at the article until there’s nothing left. One editor brought up the concept of non-neutral words being used in Wikipedia entries, in this case " celebrated " was taken out. At the same time an Editor listed three dancer profiles as examples of what they, personally felt a dancer article should look like. The first of these exemplars used phrases and words like : " intense research " and relationships with " prominent " organizations. This blundered suggestion about what examples to follow goes directly against the described " non-neutrality " rules that particular editors have used as a way to take entire sections out of an actual living person’s biography. I supposed I’m quite concerned about the timeline when these editors started assessing this particular person’s life and their career; and how they chose to do so. These editors who share similar writing styles, timing & unwillingness to adopt any kind of pleasant or helpful tone in their work should not omit whole chunks of seemingly significant material. Attached to that is the repeat historical pattern of using the "block" feature in order to stop anyone who has wanted to correct the multiple aggressive omissions. The rules are there for a reason; allowing mobbing is not one of them. If the " rules " are to have any value, they must be applied across the entire platform. Please unblock those who’ve been resisted. Mihi Credite (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]