User talk:Thissilladia

Welcome!

Hello, Thissilladia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to [[:The steward elections have started. Please vote. Close [Help with translations!]]]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NDKilla. I noticed that you recently removed some content from André Marin  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. @NDKilla^^^ 23:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thissilladia. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Based on the nature of your account as a WP:SPA and the nature of your edits, it appears that you have some interest in the articles you are editing that is not aligned with Wikipedia's mission to present a neutral, reliable, source of encyclopedic information for the public. We are not a newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

By the way, this is what is called WP:BOOMERANG Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand that Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy cuts both ways. It's inappropriate for our article to be "whitewashed" to avoid any acknowledgement of controversy at all, absolutely, but it's also inappropriate for our article to be "dirtwashed" with excessive criticism or deliberately POV presentations of it. I'm not seeing any evidence that User:InedibleHulk — a well-established editor who's been around here for years and knows the rules of the place quite well — has been acting improperly; toning down content that's lapsing too far into POV commentary is not the same thing as "whitewashing" the article entirely.

We're certainly not a venue for Marin to keep a "hagiographic" rewrite of his own résumé without acknowledging any controversy at all, but we're not a venue for critics of Marin to post their own personal opinions of him either. The article is allowed to discuss notable criticisms or controversies — but we do that by fairly and neutrally presenting both sides of the issues in question, including Marin's side of the story, and do not express our own editorial opinions about who's right or wrong. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearcat, I appreciate the response. I think that Jytdog clarified the POV issues to everyone involved. The issue I raised with you is actually fair application of WP policies. I am quite sure if I had accused an editor (and falsely at that) of authoring a non-WP site, I would have received some sort of policy violation notice. If WP policies are applied based on their own rules and the merit of an editors post, that's great and I can continue to read and learn them. But if the ultimate factor in applying WP policies is the rank of the editor, that should probably be clarified for new editors so they can make an informed choice. Thanks again Thissilladia (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) hey listen...

there is a lot to learn about the policies and guidelines (PaG) that govern WP. Not ~that~ much, actually, but there is a actually some stuff that you have to learn.

People who have taken the time to learn, and understand PaG, tend to follow PaG and are good at identifying when others break PaG. New editors screw up all the time, and are bad at identifying when others are not following PaG.

so yes, more experienced editors have "advantages"

where the difference between experienced editors and inexperienced editors really comes into play is when there is conflict

there is always conflict when new editors come here with an ax to grind (or maybe swinging axes to chop off heads) and storm into articles and start making wild changes, trashing the joint. They do this not because they give a flying fuck about wikipedia, but because they "can", and because, well, they have Something Very Important To Say. They ignore it when people try to tell them about PaG, and just get angrier and angrier and more and more frustrated when their efforts are reverted. Yeah, they are like 2 year olds having a temper tantrum. they can't get what they want, they don't know how to get it. they get blocked. they storm out of here.

it is boring and predictable, for new ax-grinding editors who don't give and never gave a fuck about WP itself, much less its "policies and guidelines", to say "the game is rigged". You will find lots of them on the internet. They are all the equivalents of 2 year olds.

it is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, the application of PAG doesn't depend on rank. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized they might be COI with the person who attacked me. Maybe they should no longer edit that page? I didn't think there was COI before but I checked. They were defensive for a reason but it certainly wasn't because of me. CheckersBoard (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the odd behaviour by another editor, found the attack on my talk page. It was by Mdann52. They have since altered it. It had said something about teaching for an online school and something about me speculating about their career, claiming defamation. Now it's gone and has been cleaned up all nice and pretty. Don't know where their explosion about a personal attack that never happened came from. I'd like to investigate this further. CheckersBoard (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you were one of the contributing editors for the Andre Marin page and it has been very valuable. Currently the page has been vandalized and there is evidence of advocacy. I normally wouldn't say that but they went on my talk page aggressively implying I am COI . They are angry because I tried to eliminate non-NPOV and return content they removed. It needs to be stubbed again I think. Interestingly this editor who accussed me of COI (and starting an edit war) took off the COI tag. Go figure. If you have a chance could you come by the page and see how it's going? It was fine until this recent edit. Clearly no desire for neutraility. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I reverted your edit at David Paciocco but wanted to explain. I posted an explanation on the talk page but just making sure you see. I posted:

I just reverted your edit and wanted to explain. I think you've confused the complaints by Andre Marin that were not upheld by the Ontario Press Council with the specific complaint by both Marin and Paciocco about the legal contracts. The Toronto Star articles were separate articles and the complaint was a separate (but related) complaint. I guess you can add that other complaints by Marin not involving Paciocco that were denied but I don't believe it's relevant to Paciocco's page. It is relevant to Marin (and is already covered on his page).

Hope that makes sense. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to André Marin seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]