User talk:TransparencyDude

August 2020

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Glen (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor didn't attempt to engage in any discussion on the Talk page, he reverted the original changes without giving any reason. He later admitted that he is a member of the organization which the page is about (FSFE). This is a clear conflict of interest. As it stands, the page reads like propaganda and violates Wikipedia's integrity. TransparencyDude (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransparencyDude, actually your revision is the current state of the article. But you're clearly the same user as FellowshipRepresentative so you're close to breaching 3RR. Hence the warning. Glen (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way Nemo reverted the FSFE page without discussion and the way you unilaterally decided to block an account and make a public warning leaves a bad impression of Wikimedia's integrity. There are clearly people in Wikipedia and FSFE who are members of both organizations and relationships between the organizations. Instead of making unilateral actions and threats, can you propose how to have the page subject to independent review so it will be less like propaganda? TransparencyDude (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransparencyDude, if you'd bothered to read our WP:PROMONAME policies before creation this wouldn't be an issue. Besides, you werent hard blocked hence why you were able to create this account. But to come straight in and start edit warring is a bad start. I'm assuming good faith hence the warning and not another block. Glen (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransparencyDude, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TransparencyDude! 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 experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Free Software Foundation Europe ‎, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Widefox; talk 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You should read WP:NOTHERE and WP:DISRUPT Widefox; talk 17:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What material do you consider to be defamation? Can you please add details in the Talk page for that organization? Looking at the page about Jacob Appelbaum, there are serious accusations taken from social media. Most people would consider that to be defamation because those accusations were never reported through any official process, they were only acknowledged in organizations where the source has personal friends. Therefore, there appears to be a precedent for controversial material to be spread through Wikipedia pages. The organization that this particular page is about also has a modus-operandi that involves defamation of volunteers, including defamation in the minutes of their annual meeting. It is therefore impossible to accurately write about the organization without some intensively negative context. TransparencyDude (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]