User talk:ClareTheSharer

Welcome!
Hello, ClareTheSharer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting started
 * Introduction 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

Nice edits on Apache OpenOffice :-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks David! Just fixing things when I see them! ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor Citations
I've been using the Visual Editor to make changes to existing articles, but when it's time to include a citation I can't see a way to insert properly tagged information about it - only a reference with linked text. What am I missing? ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you go: WP:VisualEditor/User_guide  That should fully explain adding references with the Visual Editor. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, thanks. That's pretty hidden - I would not have thought to look under Templates! ClareTheSharer (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried it. Once I realised I had to type "Cite" (that it didn't appear on its own) I made a little progress, but filling out the citation seemed to involve me knowing all the parameters possible and typing their names correctly, rather than filling in a form. As I have no clue what parameters are possible, I made no progress. IS there something I am missing here? Otherwise I will stick to copy & paste of an existing citation, but that then precludes using the Visual Editor... ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The cite template is pretty complicated, and the Visual Editor doesn't know all its parameters (yet). Welcome to using beta software! ;) In my opinion, for the citation templates, it's best to copy one, form another article, or from the template documentation itself ( cite / citeweb / citenews etc. ), and adjust it from there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks - I'll stick with full source editing for anything with citations then. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Open Source Initiative board of directors
Category:Members of the Open Source Initiative board of directors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of FLOSS Weekly episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basho. 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) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace
Just wanted to invite you to take a look at this weeks TAFI article Allegra Versace. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Conjure One
Hi. Can you explain why a navigation template that links to the article in question should not be included on said article? I don't understand the logic of your reverts. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it misleadingly implies the topic is directly relevant to the band. If the template was about Fulber it would be reasonable, but FLA is another band altogether. I suggest the Template is unhelpful and needs rework to avoid this conflict. I won't revert your edit again for 24 hours as I don't war. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should start a thread on the talkpage of the FLA article to get a WP:CONSENSUS. The topics are clearly related, hence the template placement.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oooh, my first Barnstar! Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ClareTheSharer
I was just reading your user page declaration and wanted to drop you a note and say how much I enjoyed it. Your approach seems fairly unique here or at least your declaring of it is! - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why thank-you! I appreciate that! ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, you get credit for originality at least and probably kindness as well! All useful things. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Npm (software): removed link
Hi @ClareTheSharer; I was wondering what you meant by the link being incorrect on Npm_(software) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Npm_(software)&action=history) Zhermes (talk)
 * Hi @Zhermes. JavaScript and the Java Virtual Machine are not connected in any way, so it is incorrect to make a link from one term to a page about the other. More generally on Wikipedia it's not good to make changes when you don't have a citation to support them. ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. At the same time the JavaScript Runtime Environment and the Java Runtime Environment (discussed in the same page) are extremely similar and related concepts.  Enough so that the JavaScript Runtime Environment is also references in that page, and that a dedicated page for the JavaScript Runtime Environment would likely be almost entirely redundant.  So it's not entirely clear to me that this isn't a valid reference (although, perhaps the reference should be included parenthetically, for example: "(similar to the Java Runtime Environment)."  And while I appreciate your point about the importance of citations, it hardly seems relevant when adding an intra-wiki link...  What do you think? Zhermes (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are connected in as much as they are both potentially interpreters, but that's about where it stops - they are no more related than any other runtime is related. You may be mislead by the names; Sun allowed Netscape to call their unrelated BASIC-like scripting language with a similar name to Sun's emulated microprocessor instruction set and associated systems language for marketing reasons alone. It is incorrect to draw further connections and it would be misleading to readers unfamiliar with to subject to make the connection in the article in any way. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

ForgeRock
Hello,

Concerning this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837123955, I do not understand the value of this sentence. It is stating what everybody knows about open source software: the one who writes the code owns the copyright. The sentence in the edit is worded as if there was a legal risk. But due to the license (CDDL), no such risk exists. Why is it interesting to state this fact on this article and not in any other article? (First time I see such content, and yet I have read many articles about open source software) The Oracle code is licensed under CDDL so anybody can do the same as ForgeRock (and other companies have done it). Said otherwise, this sentence has no encyclopedic value in my opinion.

If you think it should be kept, I would be happy to have convincing arguments in favour of it.

JnRouvignac (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, do you have any feedback on my comment above? Thank you! JnRouvignac (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry, I have been off Wikipedia for travel. Here's why I think it is justified:
 * + Not all open source projects have the copyright owned by a project non-participant, so it's not a universal attribute of open source software (although common for forks)
 * + In this case, the copyright owner is actually a competitor who tried to kill the project in favour of a commercial product, which is more unusual
 * + The cited source alludes to the situation with the phrase "The community owns these projects just as much as FORGEROCK."
 * + Forgerock appear to be at best in marginal compliance with the CDDL and thus there is a potential legal risk
 * Happy to discuss those but prima facie there's a good argument to keep the phrase ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss those but prima facie there's a good argument to keep the phrase ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries. I hope the travel was good :)
 * "+ (although common for forks)"
 * "+ (although common for forks)"


 * This is the first time I see such sentence for an article for a fork on wikipedia, I have never seen it in any other article, so I am wondering why this is much different here?
 * "+ In this case, the copyright owner is actually a competitor who tried to kill the project in favour of a commercial product, which is more unusual"


 * Oracle is not the sole copyright owner. Granted: they own the copyright on most of the original code, but now, ForgeRock's copyright is significant too. There are even third party copyright owners.
 * "+ The cited source alludes to the situation with the phrase "The community owns these projects just as much as FORGEROCK.""


 * So again, insisting on Oracle feels weird. Speaking about "the community" in general would seem better to me?
 * "+ Forgerock appear to be at best in marginal compliance with the CDDL and thus there is a potential legal risk"


 * I particularly do not understand this one. AFAIK, there is full compliance so I am not sure which legal risk there is?
 * If there was a legal problem, I would expect Oracle to sue in courts. They have done it in the past and I have no reason to think they have changed their mind about this.
 * JnRouvignac (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used carefully
Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name."

Also, understanding the cited policy is usually a good idea before you revert someone's edit. Asking for clarification is where it should stop. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Thanks for the great advice, Todd. You would do well to pause before arbitrarily reverting everyone's edits as I have seen you do all over Wikipedia. In this case the weight of overall evidence for this date is excellent and you would be better served by adding further supporting data than your usual destructive removal of the good faith and constructive work of others. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are wrong and exhibiting several textbook symptoms of Tendentious editing. We could do without the personal attacks too. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, again? You just archived all your own personal attacks on the same post to conceal them from those not paying attention. You are clearly embarrassed by them. Have you considered the things you accuse others of doing might be your own flaws? ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That's pretty special, Todd. ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm GermanJoe. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to List of FLOSS Weekly episodes have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit is misplaced, and the drive-by nature of the edit without discussing it on the Talk page for the community that maintains the page is disappointing. FLOSS Weekly is a weekly podcast going back a very long time that is conducted purely by volunteers (the show does carry advertising for the company that hosts it). The links you have removed have been painstakingly accumulated by listeners like me over a decade (uncompensated and unrequested) to allow listeners to identify the guests on the shows, and are not part of a link farm or of a commercial advertising activity and your edit is very upsetting to the point of appearing as vandalism. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, ClareTheSharer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page List of FLOSS Weekly episodes, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WTF? What is it with you Wikimedia insiders? It's like you never heard of people having interests and automatically assume they are corrupt. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to Restore List_of_FLOSS_Weekly_episodes to its Former Useful Self
Hi ClareTheSharer, thanks for your discussion on List_of_FLOSS_Weekly_episodes page. I've added my 2 cents worth to the article's Talk page. I'm hoping this Wikimedia insider will discuss his issue with us, rather than slashing away at a perfectly reasonable article on open source projects. Regards, Jalansari (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Heads-up, another Wikimedia editor just removed the twit.tv hyperlinks to the actual podcast episodes, and the note they left suggests even more negative views on keeping the list in Wikipedia. Getting more people involved seems to have made things worse!  They seem to be having fun over in their discussion WP:ELN.  Jalansari (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Amanda Brock draft
Hi, I was just wondering if you could have a look at my Draft page for Amanda Brock (current CEO of OpenUK) for approval - first time wiki editor so i've been trying to get it approved, if you have any tips or pointers that would be great if you have the time. Thank you Amurphy79 (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)