User talk:Paroles2000

Welcome!; Conflict of interest concerns

Hello, Paroles2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche! thank you for taking time to welcome me. I must admit, I am not quite sure what conflict of interest you are referring to in my activity. I would appreciate you being more specific. This will help me out tremendously, as I certainly don't want to great any rules. Thanks. Paroles2000 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am referring to the article on Daniel Lavoie. Your additions to that article and your editing history to this point are what prompted the note. I thought some of the links might prove helpful to you. BTW -- are you also editing as IP 46.29.213.150? Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, 46.29.213.150 is not me, sorry. Paroles2000 (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Daniel Lavoie article, are you connected in any way to the subject of the article? Including your personal relationship (including familial relationship or direct relationship) or business or financial interests (including as manager or PR person), or those of your external relationships, such as with friends or employers? Or as a paid editor? Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Epeefleche, no I am not connected in any way. I simply care about the article. Some people are really interested in subjects they write about, purely and selflessly. The way you are interested in Judaica.Paroles2000 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is not just because of the content of your edits. But because when an editor has the editing history that you have as reflected here, with their initial 100 or 200 edits focusing on an individual, coupled with the content of their edits (and talk page discussion), that can point to duck-like inferences re COI editing. Similarly, when an editor who is a single-purpose editor writes: "It is important for me to maintain this article whole and to keep the information available to readers," as you did below, my ears prick up. Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, of course, in the context that your first 100-200 edits ever -- in over a year of editing -- were overwhelmingly on the topic of this one person. In an article rife with NPOV editing. Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, of course, this is a topic that made me enter the world of Wikipedia in the first place, didn't you have one when you started? I do other edits on the subject of Canadian francophonie, but I simply don't have time to do more. Paroles2000 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't devote the overwhelming majority of my first 100-200 edits to the article on a living person. Nor did I devote the overwhelming majority of my edits in my first year of editing to one living person. Nor to an article replete with inappropriate COI-ridden NPOV edits. Nor did I post a photo of the person, singing in Moscow, as my photo. You've done all of that. This is what we refer to as circumstantial Duckish behavior. Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I thought, Epeefleche, it's just a different personal style. Everyone on Wikipedia, just like in real life, is motivated by different things. Besides sneeky paid editors there are also fans who write all those Wikipedia articles about cool living people (just visit any talk page for any similar article and you'll see who the editors are). And fans are the most passionate and altruistic people. Yes, I am a fan, yes, when I started I had no idea what the appropriate wikipedia style is, and yes, I was at that concert in Moscow, as well as in many other places. But honestly, I should not be telling these things to someone who I don't even know.

But please don't tell me you've been paying so much attention to this article not because you care about its accuracy, but because you were trying to get even with the editor, who you suspect of wrongdoing. So disappointing... I am not sure what's the Wiki legalese term for this (and I know there is a term for everything, and you know them all very well), but in plain human language that would be called bullying. As for me, I "always assume good intentions". Paroles2000 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith. And that people are not editing with a conflict of interest. However, that is a rebuttable assumption. When an article is full of slanted laudatory uncited material, and its prime contributor has spent his/her first 100-200 edits on that one article, and uploaded to wikicommons this close-up image of the Canadian subject from Moscow, and fought against ridding the article of COI editing (though generally, ultimately, acceding), the circumstantial behavior naturally leads to concerns about conflict-of-interest editing. And such concerns naturally prompt -- in an article already ridden with COI edits -- a scrutiny to make sure that the article is not still ridden with COI edits. But you will note, to this point, while I've engaged you in conversation as to my concerns, and as to how to improve the article, I've not (as of yet) raised this to the level of bringing it to the COI noticeboard. Perhaps I should, but I've chosen till now to see if I can work with you by indicating the COI elements of the article that concern me. Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paroles2000, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Paroles2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paroles2000. You have new messages at J. M.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gilles Vigneault may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [[York University]] (1985)<ref>[http://www.yorku.ca/univsec/senate/committees/hondeg/recipients.html Honorary degree recepients -

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel Lavoie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

ref>[http://www.rfimusic.com/artist/chanson/daniel-lavoie/biography Lavoie – Biography – RFI Music]]</ref>
*[[Matt Laurent]] – ''Ici ou ailleurs''. Canada 2001). Music to the song «Il y a dans tes yeux».

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited André Paiement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel Lavoie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Matt Laurent]] – ''Ici ou ailleurs''. Canada 2001). Music to the song «Il y a dans tes yeux».

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. I am discussing this issue with you on the Talk:Daniel Lavoie page along with other issues we've been discussing for a while, so please see the continuation of the conversation there. I'd rather keep this topic with the rest of the page talk for complete picture, especiallay because the subject of the awards section was raised by me on that page before, but unfortunately, you never responded. Of course, if you prefer, I can write on your talk page, but I will copy everything to the Talk:Daniel Lavoie page for the record. Paroles2000 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm just reacting to your indication that you were unfamiliar with the need for RSs, and giving you some more links per our standard template in response. If you want to otherwise keep conversation in one place, I'm uncertain why you opened it in a third place just now -- my talk page. The "Use RSs template" lands on individual talk pages, not article talk pages, which is why it landed here -- I gave you other inlines that are related on the article talk page. Including wp:burden, and the related warning re wp:v. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, I am familiar with the need for RSs, it's just that I don't recognize the wiki terms in abbreviations, since I am not as experienced as you. "I'm uncertain why you opened it in a third place just now" - only because you asked for it (" you can leave me a message on my talk page"). I am slightly confused about you opening the conversation here, which is the second place, in the first place... But nevermind that. I restored the awards section, it is a pleasure for me to go over this material. I still think this added redundancy to the article, because many references to the same facts are now repeated, but it's important for me to maintain this article whole and to keep the information available for readers. Good night. Paroles2000 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "important for [you] to maintain this article whole and to keep the information available to readers?" Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I spent lots of time writing it, Epeefleche. And because information in general is a very important concept to me. That's why I do Wikipedia. Paroles2000 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daniel Lavoie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* ''2014 Album de l'année - réinterprétation – Gala de l'ADISQ (for La symphonie rapaillée : Artistes variés<ref>[http://www.adisq.com/even-gala/2014/nomin-artis-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Félix Award, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Garou, Daniel Boucher and Corey Hart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paroles2000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Paroles2000. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Paroles2000. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]