User talk:ToBeFree: Difference between revisions

Please click here to add a new message!

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives

12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

^{Note: This is not a recent discussion; the last message was written 6 years ago. However, I will keep it at the top of the talk page because I hope that 75.110.241.177 might come back and see it one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 & 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

Of course yes, I would like to submit the draft for review as soon as possible Thanks --Fab1966 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Fabio 9/5/19[reply]

Bumping thread for 1000 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Do this when the OTRS ticket is resolved: Special:Diff/896292830 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	This is belated, but I owe a debt of gratitude to ToBeFree for extensive assistance with some difficult citation issues. Much appreciated! Astro3.142 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Astro3.142, this is very kind, thank you very much – and of course you're welcome. Good luck with the further development of the article; I'm currently a bit busy but may later have a look at the new "help me" request. Someone else will likely be faster than me, though. I have skimmed the new conversation at Talk:Kai Staats; it's nice to see that Huon has joined us there.
Have a nice evening*
*your timezone may vary ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Highly informative feedback on citations and sources, and very patient when explaining complicated policies. Thank you. Astro3.142 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of them, that's a novelty. You're welcome, and thank you very much for the feedback.

Some editors may wonder what the purpose of donating and receiving immaterial awards is. In my opinion, these awards are one of the very few opportunities for the Wikipedia community to give something back to its volunteer members. There is a reason that the relevant WikiProject is called "WikiProject Editor Retention". The encyclopedia would long have died if its editors didn't have the feeling of receiving something back for their work. Editors who frustratedly leave the project often seem to do so not least because of a lack of appreciation for their invested time.

This may also explain why the deletion of articles can be seen as being harmful to the project, and – that's the inevitable consequence of the reasoning, if it is correct – why less moral scruples seem to be involved in the deletion of paid contributions.

We both now got rewarded for our work, and I hope that your compensation contract also encompasses the time you have spent to analyze and carefully adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your approach to editing and discussion deserves to be commended, and it positively distinguishes you from the apparent majority of paid editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ToBeFree,

You've spent so much time helping me out on Talk:Kai Staats that I wanted to stop by and address my primary motivation for accepting this editing job. You could probably extract this If you read the lengthy discussion on that page, but I'll save you some time here. I see you have a BSc in EE. Looked at EE myself but ended up in physics. Been an amateur astronomer for a long time so, like you, I have some grasp of what research the Staats article is talking about and felt qualified to take on that article.

I noticed you alluded to Staats being "(barely?) notable". I get that. When he came to me with a request to write that article I cautioned him about the notability criteria and explained that, even if we did this article, there's no guarantee some editor would object on the basis of notability and nominate the page for deletion. I also explained that I would need to disclose the fact that this was a paid article, and how that would raise certain flags prompting closer scrutiny.

He was OK with all that. So I told him to compile a list of verifiable sources I could use in the article. Some time later he sent me an extensive spreadsheet with way more than I needed or could actually use (tons of third party sources for example). But when I filtered out the sources I couldn't use, I was left with what I felt was an impressive body of work, both in science and film. And so I accepted the job.

I like your suggestion that maybe it's just best to leave some [third-party source needed] flags unchallenged. I see those flags all over Wiki, even on some very old articles. Staats may just have to accept that reality, but I'm going to give this one more shot with a response to you on his talk page. I think this time I've expressed my position more clearly regarding my use of those primary sources. I'll look forward to your (or Spintendo's) response.

Thanks again. Astro3.142 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Astro3.142,

Thank you for this message. It may be the first time that I gain any insight into the decision making process behind accepting compensation for one's work on Wikipedia. I definitely appreciate and respect your decision, but I couldn't do this. I have seen an administrator fall; I have seen a destiny destroyed for what was apparently not even a large amount of money.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors, for 80 dollars per Special:Diff/818741848

Also see my response above and at Talk:Kai Staats. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point ToBeFree, and again want to thank you for the time you've spent on this issue. I have on occasion regretted taking this job, and doubt I'll ever take another like it. That's a sad and scary story about TonyBallioni et.al. you linked me to. I totally see why editors tread lightly in these areas.

Staats had to convince me he was notable enough to have an article, and I tried to verify that objectively. First I reread the notability guidelines. Then I scanned several dozen biographical articles about living persons in science/writing/film, and I saw many subjects who were (in my opinion) "less notable", so I agreed to take the job. Notability spans a spectrum of course, and there's always going to be a "gray area" where, statistically, half the editors agree and half disagree. I understood Staats would be near that point, but I still maintain he's on the notable side.

Regarding the ongoing citation issue on Talk:Kai Staats, I'll be responding to your last comment later today. Thanks again. Astro3.142 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

my first submission was rejected. Can you help me what need to be changed pls?

Thx

Bedrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavrena (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vavrena, thank you for your submission. Where did you get the information for the article from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for submitting my David Stephenson page for review. As it turned out, it was reviewd (and accepted - phew!) in half an hour! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stephenson_(architect) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Warburton Brown (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris Warburton Brown, you're welcome, and congratulations! Thank you for expanding Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I am not a Wikipedia expert, but a first time editor. I am however a Millet Scholar. I edited the incorrect kids section from 3 as it was to the 4 that the Millet's had and the one they lost Edwin. I am also a bit knowledgeable in the use of the English language, hence my carefully worded but hopefully clear comments about the Homosexuality claims made by the prior author. He is really one of very few who agree with his claims about Millet. But to support the comments with third party citations, which I agree are important, as well as personal scholarly expertise, I am attaching two quick items below. Possibly as a Wikipedia expert you can attach them appropriately. One is the Wikipedia citation and the other is from The History of English.

Mgsullivan (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Michael SullivanMgsullivan (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment:

"It should be noted that in the 19th century language and personal relationships between people of the same gender were often expressed in language that by today's standards we would sexualize when in fact there was often no overt sexual behavior, homosexual or otherwise.  Words used in communications during the 19th century and prior, were often elaborate and intimate in nature between close associates, unlike today's language which is comprised of short, often curt and simple words."  

Please see: Romantic Friendship in Wikipedia as one supporting citation for my comments and the History of English under literary developments as a second citation.

A romantic friendship, passionate friendship, or affectionate friendship is a very close but typically non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in the contemporary Western societies. It may include for example holding hands, cuddling, hugging, kissing, giving massages, and sharing a bed, or co-sleeping, without sexual intercourse or other physical sexual expression. In historical scholarship, the term may be used to describe a very close relationship between people of the same sex during a period of history when homosexuality did not exist as a social category. In this regard, the term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid-19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.[1] Romantic friendship between women in Europe and North America became especially prevalent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with the simultaneous emergence of female education and a new rhetoric of sexual difference.[2]

And 

https://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_late_modern.html

Literary Developments

A vast number of novels (of varying quality and literary value) were published in the 19th Century to satisfy the apparently insatiable appetite of Victorian Britain for romantic stories, ranging from the sublimity of Jane Austen’s works to the florid excesses and hackneyed phrasing typified by Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s famous opening lines “It was a dark and stormy night...” Due to the strictures of prudish Victorian society, an inventive list of euphemisms were popularized for body parts and other unmentionable concepts, a prudery perhaps epitomized by Thomas Bowdler’s “bowdlerization” of the works of Shakespeare in which offending words like strumpet, whore, devil, etc, were removed or toned down.

The early 19th century language of Jane Austen appears to all intents and purposes to be quite modern in vocabulary, grammar and style, but it hides some subtle distinctions in meaning which have since been lost (e.g. compliment usually meant merely polite or conventional praise; inmate connoted an inhabitant of any sort rather than a prisoner; genius was a general word for intelligence, and did not suggest exceptional prowess; regard encompassed a feeling of genuine affection; irritation did not carry its modern negative connotation, merely excitement; grateful could also mean gratifying; to lounge meant to stroll rather than to sit or slouch; to essay mean to attempt something; etc). To Austen, and other writers of her generation, correct grammar and style (i.e. "correct" according to the dictates of Robert Lowth's "Grammar") were important social markers, and the use of non-standard vocabulary or grammar would have been seen as a mark of vulgarity to be avoided at all costs.

New ideas, new concepts and new words were introduced in the early science fiction and speculative fiction novels of Mary Shelley, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Lewis Carroll began to experiment with invented words (particularly blended or "portmanteau" words) in poems like “Jabberwocky” (1872). Chortle and galumph are two words from the poem that made the jump to everyday English, but the work is jam-packed with nonsense words as may be seen from its first few lines: “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves / Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: / All mimsy were the borogoves, / And the mome raths outgrabe”).

Mgsullivan, I am a volunteer and you are throwing a huge block of text at me. That doesn't work, sorry, no. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that policy pages are basically blocks of text, so I can't really answer that. Better reply incoming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mgsullivan, thank you very much for providing these citations. If I understand correctly, you seem to have personally interpreted the source, in sentences such as:

So to characterize Frank Millet in homosexual or bisexual terms maybe overstating the relationships since it is clearly documented that Millet had a long lasting and happy marriage with his wife Elizabeth ("Lily").

– Special:Diff/897371448, Emphasis mine. This appears to be original research and is not actually given by the source.

Please also note that Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source, as anyone can edit them. For this reason, we can not cite Wikipedia articles to prove statements in other articles. This could otherwise quickly result in a

"reference loop" if two articles contain incorrect information and reference each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Mgsullivan, there may be a part of your edit that can be reliably verified from a secondary source: The number of children, their names, and their biography. You seem to have access to better sources than the article currently is built upon. I think we should ignore the English language interpretation above; let's focus on the possibly objectively wrong part of the article instead.

Wikipedia encourages you to be bold when editing. You are absolutely welcome to edit the article again, adding a reference with the "Cite" button of the editor. The links in my welcome message may help, and you may alternatively be interested in trying The Wikipedia Adventure, depending on which learning style you personally prefer.

If you are unsure how or if to proceed, feel free to add a message to the talk page of the article, Talk:Francis Davis Millet. For discussion about the number of children, feel free to add a comment to the "Number of children" section of the talk page. For a new topic, the "New section" button at the top of the page can be used.

Thank you very much in advance for your correction, and enjoy editing Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! [1] That is nice. Thank you! 78.55.22.17 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]