User talk:Wwwwhatupprrr

Welcome

Hello, Wwwwhatupprrr, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Wwwwhatupprrr, good luck, and have fun. – Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello Wwwwhatupprrr, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Dave Hickey has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

→ Hi Diannaa -- I hope you are feeling well? Because, I thought I would ask how you are feeling before I ask you if you put this edit war on my user page in error? Why am I asking you this? Because any other editor can clearly see that I have not reverted any edits in my entire Wiki history, not to mention Dave Hickey page? So are you ok? Are you warring with some other editor? I look forward to hearing from you! Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. It should have been the above copyright information. (These two notices are very close together on the Twinkle pulldown menu.) Some of the material you added to the article was identical to the sources. You can see in the edit history which websites I found you had copied. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa -- I am sure your mistake was made in haste. And, in your haste you made a mistake. There was indeed no "editorial war" going on in this article whatsoever. Apology accepted. However, I do believe you also made many other hasty mistakes: for example, deleting OUTRIGHT 3 of my paraphrasing edits from said sources. That is NOT to say that I did not have full quotes in there, too -- which is clearly admissible in Wiki policy. My experience is that any conscientious editors would simply write to another editor/s and say, "Hey, could you please increase the distance from the reference in this or that passage? If not, I will have to remove it in a few days." But, you did not do that. Too bad, because I would have understood that initiative as an editor acting in good faith looking for a positive editorial experience. Obviously, you were just editing in haste, cutting this and that, and posting fraudulent warnings on other good-faith editors trying to improve an important article (the only MacArthur Award art critic in the USA) that has been basically inactive for years (see Dave Hickey talk page); although you were aware enough and had time enough to write "paraphrase" in the deletion summary. In addition, in your haste you deleted many edits distantly far from your stated objectives: for instance, can you explain to me why you deleted these 2 edits below? I look forward to hearing from you Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 05:23, 28 April 2016‎ BG19bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,750 bytes) (-37)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB)
(cur | prev) 00:38, 12 March 2016‎ KasparBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,437 bytes) (-269)‎ . . (migrating Persondata to Wikidata, please help, see challenges for this article)

I have double checked and all the material I removed was copied unaltered from the sources. The two unrelated diffs had to be hidden as well because all intervening diffs between addition of the copyright violation and its removal have to be revision deleted for the history to be cleaned. Please don't add any more material copied from other websites to this wiki. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Diannaa have double-checked? Is this the very same editor who just gave me an apology (read above) for an obvious error -- if not outright threat to my good-faith participation in wiki? If you don't mind, I would like to review the material myself to compare the edit with the source (which, by my own admission and adherence to wiki policy includes direct quotes). In fact, let us take a moment to look at your edit description below:

(cur | prev) 15:05, 2 May 2016‎ Diannaa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,572 bytes) (-85)‎ . . (paraphrase and remove copyright content copied from http://art.unm.edu/project/dave-hickey-libby-lumpkin-ph-d-join-the-department-of-art-art-history/) (thank)

Your edit description clearly states: "paraphrase". So we have another contradiction from you between: (a) your written editorial description AND (b) your most recent narrative testimony which refutes your earlier written testimony. In addition, I would argue, that your most recent statement "The two unrelated diffs had to be hidden as well because all intervening diffs between addition of the copyright violation and its removal have to be revision deleted for the history to be cleaned." is false. Why do I make this bold claim? Because, in fact, the evidence shows that these 2 diffs were not "sandwiched between" copyright infringements. This is obviously another false statement. You deleted these 2 diffs simply because you were again working (by your own admission) in haste -- without respect for the material or without respect for the other editors that made good-faith changes.

Either way, I am left now looking at 3 errors you have made in haste. Any learned editorial observer would notice these obvious errors in the same thread and see this does not constitute a good-faith Wiki exchange. Please unlock the materials so I may in fact, review the evidence myself. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. All diffs from the first addition of copyright material to but not including the final removal of copyright material have to be revision deleted in order for all of the copyright violations to be removed from the editing history. This includes the edits with the actual infractions, the edit by BG19bot, the edit by Niceguyedc, the edit by KasparBot, and three of my own edits. For one of your edits, I paraphrased part of the edit instead of removing it outright. I have temporarily removed the revision deletion so you can review what I did. — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa for giving me (and the other editors) a chance to review these materials. In due time, I will attempt to introduce appropriate changes to the material which I hope will meet with your full approval according to wiki guidelines.Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Julia Friedman reading at The UCLA Hammer Museum.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Julia Friedman reading at The UCLA Hammer Museum.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Julia Friedman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Julia Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest the nomination if there was something to contest, unfortunately all that I can contest is a wiki tag after hours of my hard work. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Julia Friedman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julia Friedman 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/Julia Friedman 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. reddogsix (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Julia Friedman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the tag so that other editors might understand your position in the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I clearly stated my reason and position which is very reasonable: "COI tag appears to be unnecessary at this time given the fact that no edits whatsoever have been challenged, offered or even contested." Please tell me why you reverted the edit when I clearly stated my actions. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Julia Friedman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. The reasoning for the assumption is in the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this matter in the TALK page. Please address the comments in the TALK page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have no "reasoning" in the AfD? --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Friedman

Hi there- I'm sorry you're having such a tough time with this article. I've made a few edits to try to make it look a bit more like a typical Wikipedia article. This involved removing a few bits and pieces which didn't quite fit in (also, please see my comment on the talk page), but I have removed the cleanup tags on the article and the speedy deletion tag on the image. If you'll permit me a recommendation, I'd advise not engaging any further on the AfD (article for deletion) page unless answering direct questions; expressing your frustration like that (no matter how justified it might be!) is going to turn off people who may comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Julia Friedman. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 13:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read User:Freshacconci your words of caution. However, for the sake of clarity would you mind being a bit more specific? Are you referring to:

* "Please note that editor reddogsix has not discussed the COI tag per wiki guidelines on this talk page."

* "Please remove the COI tag from Julia Friedman. And please remove the warning tag from my talk page. Why? Because a COI tag clearly states "Please discuss further on the talk page." My user page is NOT this article page."

* "This is the first I have learned that there is "another world" other than "the real world"."

Or, are you referring to the startling and revealing editor's quote that I reposted for all to see? "are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits [like myself] would do that [i.e. read the Julia Friedman article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)"

Or perhaps this comment by another editor: "If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)"

Thank you for the specifics --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I appreciate that you have put real effort into making a new article, and are looking for support in keeping it from being deleted. However, as a new editor, you are likely unaware that we have guidelines against trying to round up people specifically to vote for your side in discussions, like you did with this edit. You can read the relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Canvassing. It's fine to seek out groups of people who would have an interest in the subject to put their own eyes on the article and help us come to an informed consensus in the discussion, of course. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:NatGertler !! Damn if I wasn't just reading your comments here! What a coincidence. Thank you for reaching out to me. First, I would like to thank you for noticing that I "have put real effort into making a new article." I must admit that it is the first kind word I have received after all that hard work -- which it is and was. At first, I thought the page would be a no-brainer, given pages like Catherine Taft which, unfortunately, has no content -- nor detractors -- at all. Boy, was I wrong. Only User:J Milburn has been objective at the articles wholly unfair mistreatment. Such is life. I will never create another new wiki article again, I can tell you that much: it is worth the real effort making them, but not worth the real effort defending them.

The point I tried to make to this Julia Friedman page editor with this edit was to make them aware of the AfD on the page -- given that this editor spent quite a bit of time on the page given its merit. Thanks to you I now realize my mistake and offer you my hearty apology.

Now then, it certainly appears that you aware of the plight of the Julia Friedman article. You must be interested or you wouldn't try to prevent me from making innocent mistakes. Do you have any other bits of wisdom for an article trying to contribute another woman in art history?

Re your Julia Friedman AFD response

Hi User:Wwwwhatupprrr. It's clear that you've put effort into the article, but the AFD process is (or at least should be) fundamentally impersonal regardless of how personally a page's creator may feel it.

For something approaching equivalence, note that journalists (and authors) are routinely nominated (eg: Jonathan Mann, Peter Dickinson) as are academics (Anders Gullberg, Fazlur Rahman Faridi). Those who write establish notability for others rather than for themselves. Only if they in turn are sufficiently written about, or if they meet specific presumed criteria for notability (eg WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC), can notability be established. If it were Julio Friedman who had published two collations of Davina Hickey's online writings, would the arguments at the AFD be the same? They should be. (That said, WP:BKCRIT is met, but I stand by a redirect at this time).

All that matters is: Can claims of notability be established against criteria. Though responses on the AFD are called votes, they are not really, and the closer on the AFD will (or at least should) weigh them on their merits rather than their quantity or source. In the end for the other AFDs, it won't matter that nominator SwisterTwister has over a hundred thousand edits, Basement12 has over thirty thousand, or ArtsRescuer has under a thousand, provided the weight of argument for or against notability is sufficient. And ideally those who have voted will reassess once new evidence and/or substantive arguments are provided.

The counterpart of this is that sometimes -- based on current accepted criteria -- an AFD voter needs to support retention of pages that they would personally sooner see aggregated or deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Samaritan School - Jasola).

I'll respond later on the substance of your post at the AFD. As requested here and there, however, please don't make personal attacks -- or misquote/twist responses (compare what I actually wrote with what you claimed that I wrote), and/or ascribe uncharitable motivations. Given that things will run at least another 6 days, it might be worth taking a 24 hour break from the AFD, and coming back to things fresh (and please do come back). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you! Don't give up.

Hi! I just wanted to say that I think your passion for your work is awesome and I hope you don't give up on Wiki. I'll be looking at the AfD discussion, too, and wanted to let you know that I'm here to help with references any time. I'm a librarian with a lot of database access. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful to hear from you Megalibrarygirl - Thank you for reaching out with kind words of support and encouragement! This has indeed been a completely unexpected struggle. I had no idea! And...your a librarian: the protectors of culture and civilisation! You have my full admiration. Thanks again, I'm trying to hang on to my first effort! --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to second these sentiments; I do hope that your negative experiences here won't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia further. I'm also available if I can be of any help. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brutal Josh Milburn! I would rather go through my "comps", i.e. Comprehensive examination again, rather than be dragged in the mud in this fashion! But you have been there all along, from the start. Thank you! I guess this means were friends. Hopefully it will end soon and we can both move on. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about COI

Hi Wwwwhatupprrr. I saw the AfD and I hope you haven't been put off by it. I also had a look at the article Julia Friedman and the talk page and I want to discuss a bit about COI. I noticed that you initially removed the tag yourself (and then edit warred a bit as well - but that's OK, I edit warred during my initial days at Wikipedia but now understand better). Generally, as the article creator (and possibly the one suspected of COI), it is never a good idea to remove the tag. It is best to let another editor remove the tag (which happens soon enough). In most cases, the editor who places it will remove it as soon as you respond to a conversation (if that doesn't happen, post at WP:COIN). Secondly, the guidelines at Template:COI are a bit nuanced. Yes, it states that a discussion needs to be started on the article's talk page, otherwise any editor may remove the tag. However, there is also a section "When to remove" which specifies when to remove. It is not exactly necessary that the discussion about COI has to be on the article's talk page. In practice, it is usually discussed on the editor's talk page for discretion. (Article talk pages are generally for article content, rather than an editor's COI).
In addition, I would like to clarify that COI is not a content issue (it seems from this edit of yours that you think it is a content issue). WP:COI is a behavioural guideline. COI can be managed quite easily and should not be a cause of problem if managed well. Now that said, I would request you to clarify something about COI. Are you in any way related to Julia Friedman? By relation I mean, if you are Julia Friedman yourself/ friend/ family/ colleague/ coworker/ student/ publisher or any casual or professional relation. This is just a small clarification which is needed so that I can close the issue about COI! (Note that your answer will not affect the content or the notability of the article in any way - COI is not a content issue). Thank you and you can respond here. (You can use Template:Reply to to ping me!) Hope it helps! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent advice and with COI it's usually all about being transparent. No one is prohibited from editing an article on a subject they are connected to, but editors are advised to edit carefully since WP:NPOV is an issue and COI sometimes can lead to promotional articles. That said, in a specialized area such as contemporary art with few actors, it is very difficult not to have a connection. Myself, I edit many articles on Canadian artists. Canada's art community is very small and you will most likely at least know someone who knows someone. I've edited articles on people I know personally and people I know by reputation but who has a mutual friend. It's unavoidable and there would be no articles on contemporary art if we banned COI edits outright. It's a tricky line to walk but as long as you practice transparency (and no one expects you to reveal private information) you can explain that you have a connection (if you do, I'm not assuming anything) and that you edit factually with sources and that you understand the guidelines about keeping things neutral and non-promotional. freshacconci talk to me 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the reply below and I am unable to understand why Wwwwhatupprrr thinks my above post was a personal attack. In any case I will ask Wwwwhatupprrr 2 questions and attempt to clarify -

Have you been in contact with the article subject?
Have you been in contact with the article subject's publisher?

Please understand that this is not a personal attack. I am trying to help you clarify the COI situation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand Lemongirl942 I know you "are just trying to help ME"? Thank you. So kind.

Maybe you don't understand because you haven't read the AfD? Try this for size: "Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your questions, which again have NOTHING to do with the article, nor the content of the article, nor the merit of Julia Friedman. Answer to #1: No. Answer to #2: No.

Thank you again so much for "helping me." It was greatly appreciated. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions unfortunately show the opposite. I will try again.

Are you by any chance related to LG Williams or the estate of LG Williams?
Have you ever previously used another Wikipedia account? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My actions? What actions exactly? Do you mean these condition at the end of this edit? "Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) -- --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question #3: No

Question #4: No

A kitten for you!

Take a deep breath - have a stretch - and then do come and help. We could do with your company

Victuallers (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kitty but I am not going to take * yet another * deep breath. What? Am I supposed to thank the editors above for the “words of encouragement”: Is that what I am supposed to say to Lemongirl942 , right? But look, Josh Milburn has already admonished Freshacconci for her/his actions (in deleting my re-posted requote) in the AfD in question...and told me to keep cool while being attacked. Not ONE other wiki editor other than Josh Milburn complained about this very unpleasant treatment.

The above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wwwwhatupprrr#Discussion_about_COI is the last insult. No I am not related to the subject, but Yes this is my final edit. I will [attempt] to delete my user account shortly by adding the code *db-user* to the top of my page and never contribute to wikipedia again. I hope everyone (Victuallers, Josh Milburn, Megalibrarygirl, Maile66, HappyValleyEditor, Rosiestep, The Drover's Wife, Ipigott) is happy with my obvious and necessary decision. I'm sorry, I've had enough.

In 2008, a survey found that less than 13% of Wikipedia contributors worldwide were women. And, did you know that only 16.14% of the English Wikipedia's biographies (217,442 out of 1,347,281 in total) are about women? I can tell you why. The facts in my situation are clear if anyone wants to read.

An AfD speedy deletion tag on my first article which took days to make was placed on the page by an rogue editor (a) without reading the article because (b) they wanted to accrue wiki edit numbers. This is a direct quote.

-— Not ONE wiki editor complained about this behaviour. Not one! One tag, no explanation.

Almost immediately another good-faith, good-sense editor said “Declined speedy - contains a credible indication of significance.” Why did editor write this? Because obviously the page has merit.

Then the rogue editor went back to nominated for the page for AfD. Why? This time with six words of explanation. Even though they (a) did not read the article and because (b) they wanted to accrue wiki edit numbers.

-— Not ONE wiki editor complained about this behaviour. Not one!

When I asked the rogue editor what was their explanation for their actions, they simply replied that they did read the article and supporting materials. In fact, they said, a Wiki editor cannot get high Wiki edit numbers if they spend time reading Wiki articles. This is the only editor in the AfD that wants to DELETE the Julia Friedman article. An editor who has never read the article.

-— Not ONE wiki editor complained about this behaviour. Not one!

At this point the rogue editor posted a COI tag on the page.

-— Not ONE wiki editor complained about this behaviour. Not one! One tag, no explanation.

I inquired to rogue editor about (a) the COI tag being posted on my page and (b) said there was no COI discussion in the page WHERE THE TAG STATES a discussion takes place. There was no response.

Since there was no response, according to wiki, an editor can make up to 3 good—faith changes to an edit. I made one single edit with the comment: “COI tag appears to be unnecessary at this time given the fact that no edits whatsoever have been challenged, offered or even contested.”

Why did I do this? Because you cannot have a conflict of interest (COI) WHEN NO CONFLICTS HAVE APPEARED! How can you have conflict without conflict? It is impossible. Where has there been ONE example of a conflict? The only conflict there was at this time was my questioning to an rogue editor about their actions. That’s it. Hence the rouge editor posted a COI tag on the page.

-— Not ONE wiki editor complained about this behaviour. Not one!

Finally!!! Editor Josh Milburn said: “If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too.” Like, hello!!!!

-— I am no longer pissed off, I’m outta here.

/ / / / / / / / / / /

-— I know what these attacks are about. There has been little to no discussion in the AfD about the BLP's content, merit, and notability of Julia Friedman. Her merit is apparent to all but the rouge editor who started all this nonsense -- and to Freshacconci who covered up his inappropriate actions. No serious, good-faith editor has wanted to delete the page. So now everyone wants to know basically if the editor, "if I have had sexual relations with this beautiful woman...!" Geezus, this is a Witch-hunt . There has been, all along, a coordinated attack against me for writing an article about a woman in the first place -- begun by a rogue editor who didn't read the article but saw the woman's name: Julia Friedman. This is about preventing articles about women from women. One editor said as much in the discussion, “there needs to be a policy debate about whether notability standards for female BLPs should be set lower than those for male ones.” Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC). --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be helpful by pointing out policy. I have actually not !voted on the AfD as of yet. I have never questioned her merit as a scholar and I am at a loss as to what exactly I "covered up". As it stands, it looks like the AfD will close as no consensus which means it defaults to keep. And I am certainly not opposed to that outcome. The wild accusations and bad faith assumptions are way too much however and I'll be moving along. Best of luck. freshacconci talk to me 18:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. The thread is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Despite all this upheaval and the lack of hospitality you are receiving from some, not all, editors here, I do hope you will stay on. Please come join us at the Women in Red project-->[1] Everyone there is kind, helpful, and understanding. We all support each other there. Please join us! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Wwwwhatupprrr. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing

Hi, I came across your comment to another editor regarding your AFD. FYI, comments like these are considered canvassing and are strongly discouraged. If you make a lot of these, your AFD can be disqualified. You are allowed to "inform" other users that an AFD discussion is going on that they may wish to comment on, but that's it. You cannot tell them how to vote. Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]