User talk:DoReBe

February 2024
Hello, DoReBe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Inner Wheel, 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, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * 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. Graham87 (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the earlier version. Please do not reinstate the promotional text, as you probably have an extreme conflict of interest. Sensational language like "The world is experiencing unprecedented natural catastrophes of apocalyptic proportions" doesn't take into account things like the Chicxulub crater and the fact that you even thought to post it indicates that you're probably not suited to writing here. Graham87 (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not re-instate the promotional unreferenced text. You gave Wikipedia's software, MediaWiki, your email address, which is why you got a notification. My political views are irrelevant. Given the utter lack of familiarity you have shown about Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and standards, despite which you added thousands of words of unreferenced text, I will extend about the same amount of effort in helping you. Graham87 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to know though: why are you editing this article? What kind of connection, if any, do you have with the organisation, or are you studying it? Graham87 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did add references in that edit, to Inner Wheel's website, a primary source (which we generally don't use here). Graham87 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi DoReBe! As someone who was not involved, to me this conflict looks like it could have been handled more amically. I have no idea if you'll read this, but I'll write it anyway.
 * As User:Graham87 said already, talking exclusively about the content and avoiding to talk about persons other than oneself is the easiest way to avoid and defuse conflicts.
 * When I join a new social context, I usually try to act cautiously, to avoid breaking any social norms that I may not know yet. In my experience, trying to add 20 000 characters to a Wikipedia article in a single edit is risky, even for old-timers.
 * For your information, a conflict of interest does not require money. For example, if you are volunteering for an organisation, you may benefit socially from that. This benefit may be (but does not have to be) enough to create a COI. See the links above.
 * Several passages of the text you added in Special:diff/1203274927 can be found verbatim on the internet, for example at http://innerwheeltvmblossom.org/history/. Regarding copyright, that page says "All rights reserved". So at least some of the text you added is copyrighted, and is not licensed as required by the Terms of Use. It's mainly the job of those who add material to ensure compliance. If an editor adds several thousand characters, and another editor finds even one copyright violation, a good response is to revert the entire change. Loosely speaking: If someone else left a mess, it's not your job (or mine) to turn that mess into something good, but it is our job as Wikipedia editors to remove a copyright violation as soon as we see it. And a good way is to simply revert the edit (and give the reason in the change message). Yes, your changes were reverted for a different reason. This is just to emphasize that even if the removal reasons given so far were wrong, it was still right to remove the change.
 * Finally, Wikipedia wants to maintain a Neutral point of view (NPOV). I agree with the assessment that the removed text reads like promotion and is not NPOV. Phrases like "for a better and stronger world" are subjective and POV by nature. This can be applied to everything that essentially says "this organization does good work." Such text needs to be sourced, or it's not fit for an encyclopedia.
 * --RainerBlome (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed; agreed with all above. Graham87 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Graham87 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit was the catalyst for the block. It is clear that you have no idea how Wikipedia works and you have not been listening to my explanation above about user talk pages. Nothing good can possibly come from allowing you to edit here, or even to edit this talk page. Wikipedia sums up what secondary sources have to say about a subject, not what primary sources say about themselves. Graham87 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, my political views are indeed pretty extreme ... on the left ... by US standards. I absolutely do support the goals of the Inner Wheel club. I just don't support people with no knowledge of Wikipedia romping in and acting like they own a particular article. Your text was hyperbolic so it deserved a hyperbolic reply. Graham87 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)